These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

FW system upgrades

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Akuma Nei
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#21 - 2012-05-09 18:01:03 UTC
FIRST GENERAL wrote:
Ahazu Sagam wrote:


  • level 3:

    • - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (DEFINITELY!!!!)




    I fully endorse this change.



    +1
    LizzardCUT
    Fairlight Corp
    Rooks and Kings
    #22 - 2012-05-09 18:03:17 UTC
    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    Ahazu Sagam wrote:
    T

  • level 3:

    • - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)

    [



    I fully endorse this change.


    + 1 for cyno jammers in low sec.
    RobekPL
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #23 - 2012-05-09 18:07:48 UTC


    +1 cynojammers
    ForU2nV
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #24 - 2012-05-09 18:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ForU2nV
    Lock out wrote:
    ForU2nV wrote:
    Lock out wrote:
    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    Ahazu Sagam wrote:
    T

  • level 3:

    • - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)

    [



    I fully endorse this change.



    Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.


    This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. Also who would be in charge of ON/OFF 'ing these cyno jammers? Would the space completely shut down to any capital that doesnt belong to that militia?



    Well. at least then we'd have a chance to fight PL and NCdot in subcaps. And last time Gal Mil fought PL in subcaps in Nisuwa, Gal Mil won , the only reason they couln;t hold the field beeing that after losing 20 or so Rokhs and couple chimeras, PL brought in the titans. SO in that regard, getting a chance to fight PL or otherbig entitites in subcaps would level the playing field and would make for great pvp.

    As for who would be in charge, I assume a mechanic could be designed, like the corp that had most damage on flipping the i-hub would be the one able to anchor the cyno jammer in that system.


    But then this issue could be reversed on none factional warfare entities, For Example: FW - take system control and initialise system wide cyno jam, they would have there own supers and capitals in system with the cynojammers giving them an unfair advantage against an attacker.

    We all know how much of a force multiplier a triage archon is, when supporting a subcap fleet. imagine a 10 man RR pantheon fleet sat ontop of a cyno jammer providing a continous rep. youd never kill it with an average subcap fleet. Dont get me wrong the ideas are good but there needs to be a balance.

    A possible idea would be to lock out a few systems in game permanently to any entities that are not involved in factional warfare for a militia. but again this seperates the FW peeps, from the rest of eve. (although i suspect this issue is centered more around the fact people are sick of loosing there carriers and dreads to supers, than not being able to fight the opposing faction properly) Simple matter of fact is, it is going to be incredibly difficult to make a 'fair' balance to all parties on this issue. There are viable counters in game right now to people dropping 20 supers on you, providing you have the manpower and the knowhow. Risk vs reward! Revised Game mechanics should not be allowed to compromise everyone elses game over people moaning that they've had 30 supers dropped on them? Personally im no fan of being hotdropped by 30 supers, but why deny said players the oppertunities to use there ships jsut because people are tired of loosing caps to them???

    Eve is 'dog eat dog' if you change a mechanic to water down the risk vs reward aspects, you open up the game to a new level of carebear. People moan they got insta popped on undocking so the timer was 'fixed' :(
    If you start making changes like the ones suggested you severely water down the subatance of eve, and yet again take away another part of what makes Eve, 'EVE.'
    EXOCET11
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #25 - 2012-05-09 18:14:41 UTC
    Like ... Yes..
    PC5
    project HAVEN
    #26 - 2012-05-09 18:18:06 UTC
    +1
    Cyno jamer and other good ideas
    Clodim
    Doomheim
    #27 - 2012-05-09 18:18:48 UTC
    PC5 wrote:
    +1
    Cyno jamer and other good ideas

    +1
    Loren Gallen
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #28 - 2012-05-09 18:23:12 UTC
    Lock out wrote:
    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    Ahazu Sagam wrote:
    T

  • level 3:

    • - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)

    [



    I fully endorse this change.



    Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.


    +1
    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    #29 - 2012-05-09 18:36:13 UTC
    Lord Morgo wrote:
    Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
    Monticore D'Muertos
    Goats With Frickin' Rocket Launchers
    #30 - 2012-05-09 18:42:12 UTC
    Lock out wrote:
    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    Ahazu Sagam wrote:
    T

  • level 3:

    • - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)

    [



    I fully endorse this change.



    Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.


    +1
    FIRST GENERAL
    Hostile.
    PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
    #31 - 2012-05-09 18:44:40 UTC
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.


    More alts to shoot? Awesome - more kills is always good.

    It gets FW on the diplomatic map in the Eve Universe as well. Get it done CCP!
    Monticore D'Muertos
    Goats With Frickin' Rocket Launchers
    #32 - 2012-05-09 18:46:54 UTC
    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.


    More alts to shoot? Awesome - more kills is always good.

    It gets FW on the diplomatic map in the Eve Universe as well. Get it done CCP!



    Who knows, maybe those alt pilots will like being able fly their ships and give up on F1 land.
    ForU2nV
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #33 - 2012-05-09 18:47:08 UTC
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Lord Morgo wrote:
    Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.


    As previously stated, there are counters in game to counter 0.0 hotdrops, all it takes is manpower, co-ordiantion and the right tactics.. It seems that people are wanting a 'quick fix' or an 'instant win' button as a counter, as opposed to actually putting some 'effort' in. People don't like being hotdropped by 30 SC's, build up, do something about it. all the current people doing the 'hotdropping' have put vast amounts of 'effort' into building themselves up in order to do what they do. They should be penalised because people who have put in less effort are 'tired' of getting hit with a big stick??? I do want to point out at this point that i do live in low sec, i am in no way affiliated with the large alliances doing the hotdropping and i have been on the recieving end. But i would rather, build and adapt than have some game mechanic turn eve into 'EASY MODE.'
    Pulgy
    Doomheim
    #34 - 2012-05-09 18:56:38 UTC
    +1 cyno jammers. make it happen ccp.
    No range? No problem!   Join the Church of the Holy Blaster™ . A Hybrid religion.
    Tekitha
    Esshulls Retirement Club
    #35 - 2012-05-09 18:57:00 UTC
    Gallactica wrote:
    + 1 for cyno jammers in low sec.


    this
    Gallactica
    Shadows Of The Federation
    #36 - 2012-05-09 19:06:45 UTC
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Lord Morgo wrote:
    Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.



    If that's the only major concern then jesus h Christ do it already!
    Annie Anomie
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #37 - 2012-05-09 19:27:40 UTC
    I am Annie Anomie and I endorse this suggestion.

    Really, if lowsec is supposed to be it's own thing then it'd be nice if you could fart in lowsec without a bunch of supers dropping on your head.
    Madbuster73
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #38 - 2012-05-09 20:20:48 UTC
    Make it so:

    Level 4: Station Lock out
    Level 5: Cyno-Jammers!!!


    That will Balance Low-sec vs big 0.0 Alliances !!!
    Lord Morgo
    Hate Crimes Inc
    #39 - 2012-05-09 20:33:28 UTC
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Lord Morgo wrote:
    Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1


    Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.


    If 0.0 alliances want to field armies of alts that:

    • Have to run plexes
    • Score Kills
    • Give me LP for farming them to power my cyno jammer Twisted


    They are actively participating in FW, and I have no problem with that. Just make cyno jamming expensive. That way they have to keep the numbers low to get LP returns from plexing. Then we can kill them.
    Dread Delgarth
    Flames Of Chaos
    #40 - 2012-05-09 20:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dread Delgarth
    Surely from a RP angle Cynosural System Jammers should be in the hands of the FW Militia holding the system?

    +1 from me for this to be implimented.