These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3961 - 2013-12-12 22:57:27 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Lucas, they may not realize it, but what they want is a system which easily kills all players who engage in pve with pve fits. The only ones they want to survive are the ones that use pvp fitted cruisers in large fleets with logistics always ready for the hotdrop. They don't realize that there already is a system which promotes this called incursions.

[snip]

Admit it, "local" guys: You are trying to promote the incursions style pve on nullsec on pain of cyno ganking.


No I do not, and I don't want the exact opposite, which very much appears what you want.

Nerfing cynos into near oblivion would accomplish the safety you are seeking, but it would also mean one of the main aspects of Eve would take a big hit. Big fights with lots of players and lots of capitals and super capitals might become a thing of the past with your cyno suggestions. Cynos are not used exclusively for dropping on PvE players. Most large scale PvP ops start with a cyno bridge, not jumping lots of gates.

Your cyno suggestions appear to me that you have not thought very much about the use of cynos in situations not involving PvE assets.

Do you PvP Andy? Have you used a titan bridge? How about using a carrier for something other than moving ships or ratting? Tower repping? Slowcats? This doesn't invalidate your arguments, but it suggests, perhaps a lack of appreciation for the other uses of cynos.

Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.


Precisely my point. And the Devs would not want to prevent stuff like that.

Just type in Asakai into google and note the number of non-eve related sites that mention it.

Do you ever see anything like that with PvE? No.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3962 - 2013-12-13 00:06:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Regarding rat bounties and the utility of them, well there could come a time when increasing them makes sense. After all, increasing the amount of money in circulation can be a good thing...e.g. the Great Depression. Countries that went of the gold standard (an inflationary move--FYI, the U.S. went of the Gold Standard and economic growth took off very, very shortly afterwards...of course, then NIRA was enacted and that growth pretty much stopped) early had an easier time than those that stuck it out.

As for PLEX prices, think of them as a mechanism for redistributing in game wealth. If player A has buckets of isk, and player B does not and B is also time constrained but is not RL money constrained, he can use a PLEX to increase his wealth...by selling that PLEX to player A. So what makes their linkage to real life money interesting is that the RL cost of a PLEX is pretty stable, but in game their value has increased, in other words there is an increasing shift towards wealth redistribution.

And measuring inflation in terms of one in-game commodity is perhaps not the best metric. For example, there could be seasonal and other cyclic factors that ideally you'd want to account for. The idea would be to look at a sample (or basket) of goods that most if not all Eve players buy routinely and then using a suitable price index (e.g. the geometric means) you could then construct a measure of the overall price level in Eve. You could do it with all goods bought in game, but that would require much more computation and we'd be ignoring various emergent game play aspects of the Eve economy such as the buying and selling of super capitals, the various third party services and pretty much everything that goes on with regards to the contracts as well. So you'd still, have some stuff you'd miss. (FYI, I used to work for the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the U.S., so I know fair bit about price and cost of living indices such as the geometric means index is preferred since it treats price increases and decreases symmetrically whereas the Paasche and Laspeyres do not.)

And no, gold is not the foundation of any reserve currency I know off. It does not back, for example, the U.S. dollar and has not since 1971 when the U.S. terminated the Bretton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. In fact, most reserve currencies are fiat currencies. A fiat currency, in short, is a currency that has purchasing power because people believe it has that purchasing power--i.e. fiat currencies have no intrinsic value, cannot be redeemed into some other commodity (e.g. a gold standard or silver standard) and is declared to be legal tender by the government.

So I'm not sure about why you think PLEX prices are so important given their connection to RL money. If anything, the higher the value of PLEX in game relative to RL money, the more attractive they become as a mechanism for redistributing (in game) wealth...and in a voluntary way.

I have to say, this is still a weird turn for this thread....who'd of thought this topic would come up 50 pages back? Not me.

Economics discussion has probably already started to give many a headache, but it arose with the suggestion that rewards could be increased. The main point is that inflation counters any attempt to increase player wealth. The PLEX was introduced to show real ISK value, because unlike the real world, Eve can inject resources into the economy to balance the ISK it also injects. But no matter how much resources or ISK is thrown into the Eve Universe, ISK will remain tied to the US dollar through the PLEX. Since CCP can change the value of goods by merely changing the rate the minerals are added to the Eve Universe, it does not make any sense to try to compare the value of the ISK (which CCP controls) to minerals (also controlled by CCP). The US dollar on the other hand maintains a fairly slow and consistent decline in value as measured by inflation and is therefore a good external benchmark. For the record, PLEX does not redistribute, it converts between ISK and the dollar. Conversion is not redistribution even though there is an exchange. When you exchange a US dollar for the Canadian dollar, there is also only an exchange and no redistribution. High PLEX values merely mean that people want to buy PLEX more with the US dollar and less with ISK.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#3963 - 2013-12-13 00:19:33 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

Economics discussion has probably already started to give many a headache, but it arose with the suggestion that rewards could be increased. The main point is that inflation counters any attempt to increase player wealth. The PLEX was introduced to show real ISK value, because unlike the real world, Eve can inject resources into the economy to balance the ISK it also injects. But no matter how much resources or ISK is thrown into the Eve Universe, ISK will remain tied to the US dollar through the PLEX. Since CCP can change the value of goods by merely changing the rate the minerals are added to the Eve Universe, it does not make any sense to try to compare the value of the ISK (which CCP controls) to minerals (also controlled by CCP). The US dollar on the other hand maintains a fairly slow and consistent decline in value as measured by inflation and is therefore a good external benchmark. For the record, PLEX does not redistribute, it converts between ISK and the dollar. Conversion is not redistribution even though there is an exchange. When you exchange a US dollar for the Canadian dollar, there is also only an exchange and no redistribution. High PLEX values merely mean that people want to buy PLEX more with the US dollar and less with ISK.


Why do you think the connection to the U.S. dollar is important? The dollar is not even really a reserve currency because you cannot convert ISK into dollars (you can convert dollars into game time which can be converted into ISK, but you can't go backwards). Also, for the dollar to be a reserve currency in game things like player alliances would have to convert large amounts of their isk into dollars.

I'm just not seeing the importance of this connection except maybe as a limiting factor on how PLEX prices could go.

As for comparing things like minerals to ISK, that is what people do all the time. For example, if you have alot of LP you look for the best deal in terms of ISK/LP. If you are saying you can't use a dollar/LP metric I agree, not because CCP could change the LP needed for items in the loyalty stores, but because you can't convert ISK into dollars.

And yes the PLEX redistributes ISK. The player buying the PLEX gives the player selling ISK, and the player selling the PLEX gets the ISK. Clearly the distribution of ISK in game has changed. I also would not be surprised if it was a redistribution from the older/wealthier players to the newer/poorer players.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3964 - 2013-12-13 02:47:05 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
For the record, PLEX does not redistribute, it converts between ISK and the dollar.

This is not true, you cannot convert USD into isk. You trade USD for a PLEX (or rather the right to use one, CCP still technically owns the PLEX) And then either trade the PLEX for ISK or to resculpt your character/activate another skill queue. ISK is not created in the process (a small amount of it is actually lost unless you use the trade window or drop the thing into a jetcan)
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3965 - 2013-12-13 04:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Teckos Pech wrote:

Maybe that is true, but suppose we could assure that people ratting in null could do so in perfect safety. What would happen? Two things:

1. No more losses, so people would see an increase in their individual income streams. Since this is true across all such players it would be pretty much same as increasing rat bounties.

2. More people would start ratting as a source of income which would enhance the effect noted above.

Given that rat bounties introduce no actually goods into the Eve economy in and of themselves, we are in the situation you noted in that quote you posted by Mankiw and Abel & Bernanke. The amount of money in the game could, as a result of this change, end up growing faster than it currently is meaning an acceleration of inflation.

One response: nerf rat bounties.

Another response: reintroduce uncertainty and risk to ratting.

What this also implies is that reducing the uncertainty and risk to ratting in null also could elicit a nerf to ratting income by CCP.

Nerfs/buffs to income streams are one way for CCP to influence in the in-game economy and we have seen them do both throughout the game's history.

So, be careful on wishing for enhanced safety in null. You could get it, and in the medium to long run end up having to grind even longer periods of time.

I must correct you on your connection between ISK, goods, and inflation.

1) People would not see an increase in their individual revenue streams. They would see a decrease in the losses of their virtual goods (ships). Remember how you illustrated the difference between the effects of increasing the revenue supply and increasing the goods on inflation? You were right about that and this is exactly where we see the difference between revenue supply and goods on inflation. So it would not at all be the same as increasing bounties. It would be more similar to giving the players a fully-fitted, new ship (exactly like the one they are flying) every "x" number of anoms completed, where "x" is the typical number of anoms between getting ganked.

I believe that it was Nikk who stated that people tend to do things in Eve more for the fun than for the ISK, so
2) Your second point is where this truth corrects us. Would more people pve if there was no risk to pve? Those who docked for safety would obviously resume operations, but pvp'ers, most of whom hate shooting "red crosses," would not likely start doing pve just because the risk was less.

Nothing bad happens if pve ships are not lost. Sure there will be fewer pve ships and pve modules bought, but production will simply shift more toward pvp ships and modules. People will have more ISK available to consider engaging in more pvp ops. There will be more pvp and more expensive pve setups consuming the extra ISK, but the extra ISK will be consumed by production or by PLEX, just the same.

I hope you see now that bounties and risk do not inversely affect inflation. You are right that bounties govern the rate of expansion of the money supply from the ratting source, but that source pales in comparison to the incursions and wormhole sources, so reducing bounties will not reduce inflation much and negative inflation is never desired according to current economic theory. It is interesting to observe how CCP's ability to control the flow rate of goods into the Eve Universe complicates the economic model considerably; this issue is not easily observed in RL with commodities like Gold, where the supply is very fixed and very well understood.

So be careful equating higher bounties to lower risk. The difference between virtual goods and virtual money supply could lead you to incorrect conclusions regarding the effect of risk on inflation.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3966 - 2013-12-13 04:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Astroniomix wrote:

This is not true, you cannot convert USD into isk. You trade USD for a PLEX (or rather the right to use one, CCP still technically owns the PLEX) And then either trade the PLEX for ISK or to resculpt your character/activate another skill queue. ISK is not created in the process (a small amount of it is actually lost unless you use the trade window or drop the thing into a jetcan)

OK, Astro, listen closely: Trading is the same as conversion. Before, you had USD. You traded that for PLEX; one conversion. You traded PLEX for ISK; second conversion.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Why do you think the connection to the U.S. dollar is important? The dollar is not even really a reserve currency because you cannot convert ISK into dollars (you can convert dollars into game time which can be converted into ISK, but you can't go backwards). Also, for the dollar to be a reserve currency in game things like player alliances would have to convert large amounts of their isk into dollars.

I'm just not seeing the importance of this connection except maybe as a limiting factor on how PLEX prices could go.

As for comparing things like minerals to ISK, that is what people do all the time. For example, if you have alot of LP you look for the best deal in terms of ISK/LP. If you are saying you can't use a dollar/LP metric I agree, not because CCP could change the LP needed for items in the loyalty stores, but because you can't convert ISK into dollars.

And yes the PLEX redistributes ISK. The player buying the PLEX gives the player selling ISK, and the player selling the PLEX gets the ISK. Clearly the distribution of ISK in game has changed. I also would not be surprised if it was a redistribution from the older/wealthier players to the newer/poorer players.

Teckos, same thing to you. Even though you admit that ISK can be traded for PLEX, you fail to connect the fact that time is money. By converting ISK to PLEX, you have a limited ability to trade ISK for dollars, because PLEX represents the dollars which you have not needed to spend. By saving that money, you have earned that money through your ISK conversion to PLEX.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3967 - 2013-12-13 04:30:19 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

I must correct you on the first part.
1)So it would not at all be the same as increasing bounties. It would be more similar to giving the players a fully-fitted, new ship (exactly like the one they are flying) every "x" number of anoms completed, where "x" is the typical number of anoms between getting ganked.


Most people actually don't make a habit of getting blown up every couple of anoms, MOST of the losses from ships camping ratting systems comes in the form of time lost not spent doing PvE.

Also production does not exist in a vacuum, if no PvE ships are lost (or they started dying EVEN LESS frequently than they do now) You can't just "shift production" to "PvP" ships and keep selling at the same rate.

And I can guarantee you that ISK is not the reason so many people are afraid of doing PvP.
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#3968 - 2013-12-13 04:57:18 UTC
How about doing it like clear skies?

Deploy a "cyno jamming site" off-grid from a celestial... Spawns an annomoly called "cyno jammer (active)" that while active doesn't stop them from being deployed but stops ships jumping in that are at war with the sovereign alliance. (must be deployed as an alliance asset by the sovereign corporation or by someone they have designated as "allowed" to anchor this particular structure)

Players can freely warp to it and it is weak enough to be taken down by 2 bombs from a stealth bomber.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3969 - 2013-12-13 05:56:29 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.

I'll try to play devil's advocate and say that we don't need another Asakai before CCP's hardware can handle events like that, and perhaps we should think if it's possible to promote events occupying a single grid less (and I don't mean it from technical standpoint).

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3970 - 2013-12-13 06:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Astroniomix wrote:

Most people actually don't make a habit of getting blown up every couple of anoms, MOST of the losses from ships camping ratting systems comes in the form of time lost not spent doing PvE.

Also production does not exist in a vacuum, if no PvE ships are lost (or they started dying EVEN LESS frequently than they do now) You can't just "shift production" to "PvP" ships and keep selling at the same rate.

And I can guarantee you that ISK is not the reason so many people are afraid of doing PvP.

(Apologies in advance for the wall of text. I hope at least that the reading is interesting and insightful.)

Astro, I never said "couple," I said "x" and quite clearly too. Basically, I was describing the equivalent of increased safety/decreased risk. It would amount to this: After a player loses their ship, they find the exact same ship fitted and ready in their hangar. This is NOT a proposal, but an equivalency illustrating that the loss of risk is NOT an increase in ISK through bounties, but IS instead an increase in GOODS through an entire fitted ship replacement. The entire purpose is to show that decreased risk does NOT affect inflation because it is GOODS-based, while increased bounties does affect inflation because it is monetary supply-based.

In case anyone is interested, the reason I focus on PLEX to evaluate true virtual inflation is because an increase in goods supply (mining yield/rate and module drops, etc.) can counter the inflation of increased bounties and incursions payouts within the system, but cannot counter inflation with respect to an external system (PLEX conversion with the US dollar/player time value).

On your second point, if no pve ships are lost, production can easily shift to pvp. The manufacturers simply send their minerals into different blueprints. People will continue buying at the same rate as they are earning, except the ISK will be directed into more pvp, thus increasing the pvp market.

I guarantee you that the fear of losing the ship and modules is most definitely a primary concern regarding engaging in pvp, but I don't see the relevance of excluding the motivation of ISK in our current discussion. I haven't even bothered to address the role of ISK in pvp avoidance, because it distracts from the primary issue of the cyno in creating cloaky cyno issues and many other issues. Also, why do you hesitate to put forth your own ideas for the motivations of "being afraid of pvp" after denying the motivation of ISK with such firmness? Do you see any other reason to fear pvp besides losing ISK/goods? Do you really think that "so many people" fear pvp because of the killboards? Regardless of the reason for the fear, there must be a reason why you think that we should exclude "ISK" from the list of those fears. What does the motivation for pvp fear matter in our current discussion on addressing issues with AFK cloaky cynos?

Lastly, but most importantly, if my cyno restrictions/limitations were in place, I assure you that through different tactics, the same massive and meaningful battles would take place. As I said before, only the tactics would change. But they would be much more meaningful tactics and much more meaningful battles. What creates the meaning? Now there is a million dollar question. The meaning comes from having significance in the history of Eve and playing an important role in larger developments. This isn't to say that a loss doesn't affect the bigger picture, but it instead focuses on the idea that the loss occurs as a meaningful part of the struggle. For example, a miner gets ganked in high sec. Yes it affects all of Eve with producers replacing the ship and fittings and the miner diverting ISK from other projects to replace the ship. But it is meaningless because it gives a very shallow story: mining ship was ganked, the end. The ganking is not part of some meaningful struggle, but is an isolated story by itself. Like the tank battles in World of Tanks, the battles are isolated and contribute nothing to a larger story. Even though WG created a "map" for isolated tank battles to contribute to a limited concept of ownership, the battles are still fairly meaningless except in a liberal imagination that the battles on the same map represent a struggle for a specific area on a map. To be meaningful, battles should tell a story of a fight for ownership and for expansion or for exploration. An easy cyno blob on a lone pve ship is rather uninteresting and does nothing for the story of Eve; it is meaningless. Blob wins, surprise, surprise. I have never heard a single story that an alliance lost all their territory because they were AFK cloaky cyno camped. The story is always so much more interesting than that. Cloaky cyno camping hurts Eve and offers nothing for content, for meaningful influence, or for a meaningful story to Eve.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3971 - 2013-12-13 08:03:11 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.

I'll try to play devil's advocate and say that we don't need another Asakai before CCP's hardware can handle events like that, and perhaps we should think if it's possible to promote events occupying a single grid less (and I don't mean it from technical standpoint).

Asakai was a perfect storm of events, things don't typically escalate to quite the node-crashing extremes with no warning whatsoever like that.

Asakai was about 30 seconds and a few pixels away from either being just another day in EVE or not happening at all.

(forums ate my reply to Andy and I'm too tired to type it all out again so I'm going to bed)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3972 - 2013-12-13 08:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Teckos Pech wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

Lucas, they may not realize it, but what they want is a system which easily kills all players who engage in pve with pve fits. The only ones they want to survive are the ones that use pvp fitted cruisers in large fleets with logistics always ready for the hotdrop. They don't realize that there already is a system which promotes this called incursions.

[snip]

Admit it, "local" guys: You are trying to promote the incursions style pve on nullsec on pain of cyno ganking.


No I do not, and I don't want the exact opposite, which very much appears what you want.

Nerfing cynos into near oblivion would accomplish the safety you are seeking, but it would also mean one of the main aspects of Eve would take a big hit. Big fights with lots of players and lots of capitals and super capitals might become a thing of the past with your cyno suggestions. Cynos are not used exclusively for dropping on PvE players. Most large scale PvP ops start with a cyno bridge, not jumping lots of gates.

Your cyno suggestions appear to me that you have not thought very much about the use of cynos in situations not involving PvE assets.

Do you PvP Andy? Have you used a titan bridge? How about using a carrier for something other than moving ships or ratting? Tower repping? Slowcats? This doesn't invalidate your arguments, but it suggests, perhaps a lack of appreciation for the other uses of cynos.

Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.


Precisely my point. And the Devs would not want to prevent stuff like that.

Just type in Asakai into google and note the number of non-eve related sites that mention it.

Do you ever see anything like that with PvE? No.
Asakai would not have happened without null PVE either though.
null PVE players built the titan that started it. Titans do not get created through PVP. Then all the titans and super that came to join in, again all PVE created.

Sure, with no Cynos, Asakai could not have happened, and that's why I don;t think the answer is nerf cynos. But it couldn't happen without PVE either, which is why the answer is also not nerf local.

Balance has to be maintained, and the second you put PVE players in a position where despite their best efforts they still get killed, PVE in that area dies. There's simply no point for a PVE player to provide some ganker (which is essentially a PVP carebear) with free kills when they could simply move to high sec and make about the same isk. Sure, some people would remain, but they wouldn't be the guys that look at the bottom line and build titans, supers and stations. Hell, if Nikks idea went in, I'd never jump a JF into null again either.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3973 - 2013-12-13 23:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:

Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.


Precisely my point. And the Devs would not want to prevent stuff like that.

Just type in Asakai into google and note the number of non-eve related sites that mention it.

Do you ever see anything like that with PvE? No.
Asakai would not have happened without null PVE either though.
null PVE players built the titan that started it. Titans do not get created through PVP. Then all the titans and super that came to join in, again all PVE created.

Sure, with no Cynos, Asakai could not have happened, and that's why I don;t think the answer is nerf cynos. But it couldn't happen without PVE either, which is why the answer is also not nerf local.

Balance has to be maintained, and the second you put PVE players in a position where despite their best efforts they still get killed, PVE in that area dies. There's simply no point for a PVE player to provide some ganker (which is essentially a PVP carebear) with free kills when they could simply move to high sec and make about the same isk. Sure, some people would remain, but they wouldn't be the guys that look at the bottom line and build titans, supers and stations. Hell, if Nikks idea went in, I'd never jump a JF into null again either.

First, Asakai most assuredly would have happened with any of my many cyno limiting proposals in place (though I do offer an alternative hyperdrive proposal which would balance everything in a very cool way)! The Titan would have still warped into the middle of Test. All of the subcaps would have been in route for sure. TiDi would have drawn out the combat easily long enough for the massive numbers to get in and continue prolonging the TiDi. Caps would have still jumped into the system using the cyno. The only difference is that they may have jumped in near the friendly pos first and warped in, and there may have been a 1 minute delay in their engagement with the battle. But with 4 hours of slow motion combat, 1 minute is nothing. Even at 10% TiDi that is only 10 minutes and they would already be aligned and warping in at that point. Many of my cyno proposals don't even affect modern cyno tactics using non-cloaky ships.

Now, Lucas, I think that everyone accepts that PVE is important, but the issue that I am seeing currently is that "local" naysayers do not see how massive their ideas will impact PVE. Furthermore, they dismiss all players vulnerable to and resistant of the changes as new players who need to either adapt or return to high sec, as if they are an elite class of pve deserving of the rewards of null because of their "eliteness."

Remember, limitations to cynos will still allow normal operations to happen in a slightly different way while addressing the overpowered nature of cloaked cynos. I have NEVER advocated removing cynos.

I have been in favor of a jump drive moving between systems without the need for a cyno, though, but that would change the lore of jump drives from controlled wormholes to advanced, high-speed warp drives, ie hyper drives. In such a system, the cynos could be used to guide the ship to an exact place whereas otherwise the travel would be much less precise; traveling the ship through the solar system and dropping out somewhere in the solar system. Also, I don't think that ships should have to be tied to the cyno beacons as they are now. In this model, capital ships could drop out of hyperspace travel between systems in deep space and travel between systems would take some time. Whatever happens to cynos, it is clear to me that defensive fleets should have somewhat of an advantage over ganking hotdroppers when operating in their own sovereign space. There should be a substantial penalty for flying through hostile, sovereign space. Ownership of space should have much greater meaning than it does now; in addition to the pve advantages, their should also be more combat advantages.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3974 - 2013-12-14 02:40:16 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

The Titan would have still warped into the middle of Test.

Actually he wouldn't have, because the titan did not warp, he jumped which is a fairly significant difference. Also the idea that they would have been able to form up a cap fleet off grid and that the targets would have sat there waiting for them to do it is pretty silly.

Lastly, your hyperdive mechanic was terrible in all of its iterations, that thread needs to STAY dead.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3975 - 2013-12-14 05:15:06 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

The Titan would have still warped into the middle of Test.

Actually he wouldn't have, because the titan did not warp, he jumped which is a fairly significant difference. Also the idea that they would have been able to form up a cap fleet off grid and that the targets would have sat there waiting for them to do it is pretty silly.

Lastly, your hyperdive mechanic was terrible in all of its iterations, that thread needs to STAY dead.

Give me a break!

According to this source, the Titan warped into the middle of a Test formation without any support.

Obviously, the targets would remain on grid as they pounded the Titan. So yes, they would have "waited" except the "waiting" would be attacking the Titan. Why create a silly idea of waiting idle with a Titan on grid when no one has proposed anything of the kind?

Finally, hyperdrive is a great idea and is very commonly used in many very popular science fiction films. Solo pve battleships being ganked by solo frigates bringing in massive red blobs and dying within seconds without any chance for a defense fleet to step in is a terrible idea.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3976 - 2013-12-14 09:36:08 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
the Titan warped into the middle of a Test formation without any support.


Note how they also called it a "warp bridge".
Mag's
Azn Empire
#3977 - 2013-12-14 11:00:29 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
the Titan warped into the middle of a Test formation without any support.


Note how they also called it a "warp bridge".

Yea they do kinda mix up the terminology, but the Titan pilot basically bridged in by mistake as you said.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3978 - 2013-12-14 12:31:45 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
the Titan warped into the middle of a Test formation without any support.


Note how they also called it a "warp bridge".

Yea they do kinda mix up the terminology, but the Titan pilot basically bridged in by mistake as you said.
Indeed. When you have a cyno lit for you an you are in a titan, you get 2 options, Jump and Bridge. If you click the wrong one, bad stuff happens.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3979 - 2013-12-15 01:00:28 UTC
Better keep this on the front page.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3980 - 2013-12-15 03:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
the Titan warped into the middle of a Test formation without any support.


Note how they also called it a "warp bridge".

Yea they do kinda mix up the terminology, but the Titan pilot basically bridged in by mistake as you said.
Indeed. When you have a cyno lit for you an you are in a titan, you get 2 options, Jump and Bridge. If you click the wrong one, bad stuff happens.


They said, "What was unusual was the pilot accidentally warping the Titan itself into a TEST formation." I naturally assumed they meant normal warping. Never heard of jumping being referred to as warping before. To be honest, jumping is nothing at all similar to warping; the first creates an artificial wormhole while the second actually bends space. I can accept that the Titan accidentally jumped himself. I heard of a story like that and this may be the one. I would not say that we are trying to make Eve into a compilation of stories founded on such foolishness. Eve needs fewer opportunities simple catastrophic mistakes and more opportunities for greatness.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein