These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is Risk-Free Lowsec/Nullsec Travel Appropriate in EvE???

Author
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#61 - 2012-06-26 17:08:41 UTC
I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-06-26 17:13:26 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that.

it is already present. jump after undock and dock after cyno-jump.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#63 - 2012-06-26 17:23:14 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that.

it is already present. jump after undock and dock after cyno-jump.


I think he meant increasing increasing the cyno session change timer from 10 seconds to 30 or 60 or whatever seconds....

If it was a 60 seconds session change timer after cynoing in, it would not be very hard for an enemy to decloak, tackle you, hotdrop a fleet, and nuke even a well tanked carrier before it could dock... Given an appropriate "session change timer", this could be a nice way to balance the currently risk free travel.... Although where that balance is I'm not so certain of...
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-06-26 17:30:43 UTC
once i was moving stuff from Venal to empire. Was needed to make like 6 jumps to-from.
Every time i lighted cyno in 6NJ someone killed my cyno-frigate.
Ok. Let's use something fatter. I fit Abaddon with passive armor tank. And....

First time it lights cyno some NPC-noone alliance hot-droped 30+ gang on top of the station. My thanny had no chance to resque that Abaddon......

This is risk and cost of cyno. If you guys don't see any risks and costs you should left your BLUE-SEA and try to do job inside more dangerrous environment?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Kratisto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-06-26 17:34:06 UTC
I think part of this game has always encouraged groups, but it has always made a viable path for the soloist to eke out a living in some form or another. In what manner would you propose that a solo player be able to move assets about in eve online, if cynoing to stations was disallowed?

You can mission solo, you can mine solo, you can pvp solo; Marketing, transport, etc etc. Removing the cyno to stations would severely limit the individual player's mobility, and I am not sure thats a good thing. When you first join a new alliance or corporation, youre not going to trust THEM to move your stuff for you; youll just end up as another scam story. While you could argue using some hireling to carry your things, those hirelings will need to have active flleets to move assets places.

Well thats great right? A new enterprise for capsuleers. Hiring 15 guys to move 1 shipment, and possibly pvp as well for the one simple thing, is going to cost more than the average capsuleer is willing to pay.

I see this leading to stagnation. The great part about eve is you always have a great many options. You can always start new somewhere else, you just have to move your stuff. Removing the ease of asset movement restricts players choices, and thats no good.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#66 - 2012-06-26 17:54:37 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
once i was moving stuff from Venal to empire. Was needed to make like 6 jumps to-from.
Every time i lighted cyno in 6NJ someone killed my cyno-frigate.
Ok. Let's use something fatter. I fit Abaddon with passive armor tank. And....

First time it lights cyno some NPC-noone alliance hot-droped 30+ gang on top of the station. My thanny had no chance to resque that Abaddon......

This is risk and cost of cyno. If you guys don't see any risks and costs you should left your BLUE-SEA and try to do job inside more dangerrous environment?


1.) Agony does NAP-fest, we strive shoot everyone!!!!

2.) I'm not sure I understand your point.... Your saying the risk of losing your cyno ship when trying to transport your capital ships signifies a risk to your ship. Most people use noobships or disposable frigates to light their cyno, and consider the cost of said ship part of their fuel costs.... Using an abaddon is very abnormal!! Since then, how often do you use a BS rather than a disposable frigate to light your cynos? Here's my point: People typically don't risk anything of value when cyno traveling.... The cyno mechanics allow them to safely move from station to station with virtually NO RISK to the cynoing ship, and the ships they use to light the cyno are rarely worth a pigs fart... I think, either the mechanics need to change, so your ship doesn't travel completely safely from point A to point B, or the cyno ship needs to be valuable enough that people CARE about losing it (this secondary option I consider fairly acceptable, becuase it means there is risk in the cyno travel process, even if not to the cyno traveling ship).

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#67 - 2012-06-26 17:58:16 UTC
I proposed a change to this some time ago.

Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:

Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.

It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:

- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below)
- Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?).
- Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS)
- Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.

The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#68 - 2012-06-26 18:01:44 UTC
Kratisto wrote:
I think part of this game has always encouraged groups, but it has always made a viable path for the soloist to eke out a living in some form or another. In what manner would you propose that a solo player be able to move assets about in eve online, if cynoing to stations was disallowed?

You can mission solo, you can mine solo, you can pvp solo; Marketing, transport, etc etc. Removing the cyno to stations would severely limit the individual player's mobility, and I am not sure thats a good thing. When you first join a new alliance or corporation, youre not going to trust THEM to move your stuff for you; youll just end up as another scam story. While you could argue using some hireling to carry your things, those hirelings will need to have active flleets to move assets places.

Well thats great right? A new enterprise for capsuleers. Hiring 15 guys to move 1 shipment, and possibly pvp as well for the one simple thing, is going to cost more than the average capsuleer is willing to pay.

I see this leading to stagnation. The great part about eve is you always have a great many options. You can always start new somewhere else, you just have to move your stuff. Removing the ease of asset movement restricts players choices, and thats no good.


Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#69 - 2012-06-26 18:18:07 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I proposed a change to this some time ago.

Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:

Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.

It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:

- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below)
- Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?).
- Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS)
- Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.

The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec.


If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's.

This has several benefits:
1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno.
2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle.
3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!!
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#70 - 2012-06-26 18:41:12 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.

So much for hot-dropping blaster ships.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Kratisto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-06-26 19:50:24 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation!


That method is ******** if there are neuts in system undocked and active. all it takes is 1 frigate to hold you down for 10 seconds, and the rest of the gang is there. Would you do that if there are 7 hostiles perma camping the highsec ingate? risking a 1-5b+ isk ship on a wager that they arent paying attention is not going to fly with me, nor with many. And yes, 2 accounts is very common for many in eve; hell you probably have at least that.

The only safe way to transport ships would be to have 3+ instacanes sitting on a cyno +scouts in neighboring systems, and that is a scale of operation that takes more organization or isk than the average person is willing to pay. The webbing requires knowing what you are doing to boot; if you just web the ship too early, you've just ****** yourself. Travel should not be a giant pain in eve online.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#72 - 2012-06-26 20:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Kratisto wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation!


That method is ******** if there are neuts in system undocked and active. all it takes is 1 frigate to hold you down for 10 seconds, and the rest of the gang is there. Would you do that if there are 7 hostiles perma camping the highsec ingate? risking a 1-5b+ isk ship on a wager that they arent paying attention is not going to fly with me, nor with many. And yes, 2 accounts is very common for many in eve; hell you probably have at least that.


Most jump-drive ships with a reasonable fit and reasonable skills can easily reduce their align time to under 30 seconds (under 20 if they get excessive). Web to warp will easily decrease their align time to under 10 seconds (You can reduce it to 2-3s if you use the right ships). Assuming an alert inty/dictor immediately warps to the cyno when it goes up, they'll enter warp about the same time you cyno into system. Unless you're lighting the cyno within a few AU's of the hostiles (which you're smart enough not to), it is very unlikely they will land on grid before your ship is webbed to warp. But it is risky... as waiting too long to jump through the cyno, an incompetent webber, etc.. will give you a very bad day...

Look at the other side though.... why should you be allowed to safely travel to a system camped by hostiles? If there are seven hostiles permacamping the system to limit incoming traffic, is it really fair or appropriate that you can easily bypass them with no risk other than losing a negligible cyno frigate???

Another note, have you thought this could be used to your benefit? One of my favorite tactics I call the cyno bubble trap... I anchor a bubble somewhere in space (ideally beyond scan range), put a disposable cyno ship inside it, position a small gang of cheap ass tackle dessies and gank boats next to it, perhaps a jammer at range.... light the cyno and enjoy the fireworks... Do that a few times, and people won't be instantly warping to your cynos!!

Other options, if you know they are camping a specific gate, block their warpin with a bubble!!!
Other options, bring in your ship under POS protection...
Other options, you go to a different system....
Other options, crash a decoy ship into them so they are too occupied to come after your capital...
Other options, light muliple cyno's....

Sure, much of this requires teamwork and gang mates, but I hardly think my suggestion makes cyno travel unfairly nor unmanageably risky...


*edit* To repsond to the statement below:
Kratisto wrote:

The only safe way to transport ships would be to have 3+ instacanes sitting on a cyno +scouts in neighboring systems, and that is a scale of operation that takes more organization or isk than the average person is willing to pay. The webbing requires knowing what you are doing to boot; if you just web the ship too early, you've just ****** yourself. Travel should not be a giant pain in eve online.


You can safely cyno in with a merlin... Fit it with a cyno, 3x webs, a prop mod, and maybe even a small bubble to give yourself more security.... And yes, if you're flying a billion + isk capital ship, I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING... How is that unreasonable??
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-06-26 20:42:53 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
Actually you're really only upset that you can't freely gank these ships like you can other haulers. You're not content with the number of helpless targets you kill already.


Well.....yeah.Blink
Kratisto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-06-26 21:06:47 UTC
your first 3 options do not apply to JFs, which cannot (in most cases) choose another system, requiring to be 1j out of highsec; posses if youre traveling across the galaxy are impractical, dropping a bubble in lowsec isnt possible. As for crashing a decoy ship, I was talking about -solo- ish players, at any rate a 5m+ sacrifice to keep the gankers interested, And as for lighting multiple cynos.... again trusting your multiple billions of isk to a roll of the dice.


JFs again suffer from a lack of fitting utility. Should a significant part of your eve assets (a JF) rest solely on your ability to properly web after cynoing in? If it does, a lot of people would much rather not take the risk. I can freely admit I mess up 1/10 times, and while I might just be a scrub, that is just far too much.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#75 - 2012-06-26 21:27:06 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I jsut want there to be risks that should be mitigated!!!!


such as "light a cyno on the station instead of blindjumping to a beacon"

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2012-06-26 21:27:51 UTC
i mean hey let's just limit cyno travel only to those with a supercapital fleet on standby

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

D3F4ULT
#77 - 2012-06-26 21:30:49 UTC
LOL

Cyno-ing is broken to pvp players but don't you fking dare talk about Cloaking.

"Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve"

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#78 - 2012-06-26 21:35:25 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I proposed a change to this some time ago.

Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:

Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.

It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:

- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below)
- Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?).
- Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS)
- Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.

The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec.


If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's.

This has several benefits:
1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno.
2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle.
3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!!


Good point, but consider this: you do not need to design a game mechanic that works the same for all your ships.

Take cloaking for example. All ships can equip a cloak, but only a few can really use it to it's full potential (warp cloaked, no targeting delay)

Perhaps it is time to have two cyno modules?

The first one being not very precise, cheap and easy to fit. Mainly used for traveling and/or easy to skill into for your regular cyno alts.

The second one would be much more pvp-oriented and be required for titan bridges/covert bridges. It would be very precise (just like the one we have now) but be more expensive in terms of price and req. skills.

I understand that when creating the cyno mechanic, it is simpler to have one mechanic to rule them all, but in this case cynos are used for two very different things - so sculp them accordingly to their role rather than having a cheap in-between.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#79 - 2012-06-26 21:45:25 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I proposed a change to this some time ago.

Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:

Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.

It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:

- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below)
- Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?).
- Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS)
- Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.

The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec.


If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's.

This has several benefits:
1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno.
2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle.
3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!!


Good point, but consider this: you do not need to design a game mechanic that works the same for all your ships.

Take cloaking for example. All ships can equip a cloak, but only a few can really use it to it's full potential (warp cloaked, no targeting delay)

Perhaps it is time to have two cyno modules?

The first one being not very precise, cheap and easy to fit. Mainly used for traveling and/or easy to skill into for your regular cyno alts.

The second one would be much more pvp-oriented and be required for titan bridges/covert bridges. It would be very precise (just like the one we have now) but be more expensive in terms of price and req. skills.

I understand that when creating the cyno mechanic, it is simpler to have one mechanic to rule them all, but in this case cynos are used for two very different things - so sculp them accordingly to their role rather than having a cheap in-between.


This idea could have potential too.... one cheap cyno generator really just brings you half-hazardly into system with a few AU of the cyno, and one cyno lands your ships at a very specific location... I'd prefer to just make all cyno's expensive, as a random spawn point will be even MORE safe than cynoing directly onto the station!!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#80 - 2012-06-26 21:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Kratisto wrote:
your first 3 options do not apply to JFs, which cannot (in most cases) choose another system, requiring to be 1j out of highsec; posses if youre traveling across the galaxy are impractical, dropping a bubble in lowsec isnt possible. As for crashing a decoy ship, I was talking about -solo- ish players, at any rate a 5m+ sacrifice to keep the gankers interested, And as for lighting multiple cynos.... again trusting your multiple billions of isk to a roll of the dice.


JFs again suffer from a lack of fitting utility. Should a significant part of your eve assets (a JF) rest solely on your ability to properly web after cynoing in? If it does, a lot of people would much rather not take the risk. I can freely admit I mess up 1/10 times, and while I might just be a scrub, that is just far too much.


I think you're being purposely difficult... but that's probably becuase this change makes your life purposely difficult... Lol

1.) Any ship with a jump drive is NOT limited to any system. It might be ideal for you to use a particular system, perhaps because it's the shortest route to jita, or its where you have supplies, or you don't want to do more than one cyno jump, but only in a few very rare circumstances are you LIMITED to jumping into your ideal system. If you add one extra Jump, first to a lowtraffic, unpopulated lowsec system (of which there are plenty), suddenly you have many potential systems that could get you safely out to highsec...

2.) I don't deny that this change makes it hard on the solo'ish players that perform logistics to the more dangerous areas of EvE. Do you think its appropriate for logistics to these regions to be easy and risk free???? If it's a "dangerous region", perhaps you should avoid it as a solo-ish logistics player, and leave logistics to those regions to the more organized groups of players that setup POS's for protection, or have allies to protect them, etc...

My suggestion isn't the only potential tool... I think there are several options...

Whatever the fix, I still think risk free travel to the most dangerous areas of EvE is just wrong.... Do you really think that's appropriate?? And if so why??

-- is it because spending billions on a ship means it deserves safe travel??
-- is it because you think logistics can't and won't happen unless the logistics ships are essentially immune to risk??