These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor needs rebalancing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#21 - 2014-08-25 05:03:45 UTC
activation time is far too long IMO. Restricts it for defensive use only which makes it quite boring.

The volume is also a bit big for no good reason.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Elisiist Aldent
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-08-30 03:20:54 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
activation time is far too long IMO. Restricts it for defensive use only which makes it quite boring.

The volume is also a bit big for no good reason.


I think the activation time is ok. That feels balanced. It's the ranges that feel off. Honestly I feel that they should be hancorable at 0 to gate, but 25 would be a fair minimum.

I don't know why anyone would want to light a cyno next to a gate outside pvp... JCs I guess?
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#23 - 2014-08-30 11:42:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast.

I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored.

These deployables were never meant to be used as grid-wide area denials of cyno's nor where they meant to endure throughout an entire battle. They were more meant to give a slight buffer/defense to those more static fleets, such as sieging dreads, than denying the use of capitals on a grid. Additionally, "this structure prevents all normal cynosural fields (but not covert cynosural fields) from activating within 100km. This allows groups of players to shield themselves from hotdrops, control how their opponents can deploy capital ships", not fully deny.

They are also designed in this way:
"The Cynosural Inhibitor has been tuned to be most useful to small and medium gangs, as the vast majority of its 160,000 effective hitpoints come from structure rather than shield or armor. This ensures that large fleets of logistics or capital ships cannot keep the structure alive under large scale fire. "

There IS value in using these modules, those that have used them or had them used against them know that. Any real buff of these modules will likely make them overpowered.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/better-living-through-mobile-structures/
Elisiist Aldent
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-08-30 13:00:20 UTC
Quesa wrote:
I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast.

I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored.

These deployables were never meant to be used as grid-wide area denials of cyno's nor where they meant to endure throughout an entire battle. They were more meant to give a slight buffer/defense to those more static fleets, such as sieging dreads, than denying the use of capitals on a grid. Additionally, "this structure prevents all normal cynosural fields (but not covert cynosural fields) from activating within 100km. This allows groups of players to shield themselves from hotdrops, control how their opponents can deploy capital ships", not fully deny.

They are also designed in this way:
"The Cynosural Inhibitor has been tuned to be most useful to small and medium gangs, as the vast majority of its 160,000 effective hitpoints come from structure rather than shield or armor. This ensures that large fleets of logistics or capital ships cannot keep the structure alive under large scale fire. "

There IS value in using these modules, those that have used them or had them used against them know that. Any real buff of these modules will likely make them overpowered.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/better-living-through-mobile-structures/


by range i meant anchor range to gates and stations.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#25 - 2014-08-30 19:56:58 UTC
Elisiist Aldent wrote:
Quesa wrote:
I would be okay with reducing the minimum distance you can anchor them next to gates/pos's/stations to 50k and maybe within 150k of another inhib but the range and EHP are fine. They are incredibly powerful, small enough for most ships to carry and anchor relatively fast.

I've used and combated these deployables extensively and if anything, they seem a bit too powerful in how fast they can be anchored.

These deployables were never meant to be used as grid-wide area denials of cyno's nor where they meant to endure throughout an entire battle. They were more meant to give a slight buffer/defense to those more static fleets, such as sieging dreads, than denying the use of capitals on a grid. Additionally, "this structure prevents all normal cynosural fields (but not covert cynosural fields) from activating within 100km. This allows groups of players to shield themselves from hotdrops, control how their opponents can deploy capital ships", not fully deny.

They are also designed in this way:
"The Cynosural Inhibitor has been tuned to be most useful to small and medium gangs, as the vast majority of its 160,000 effective hitpoints come from structure rather than shield or armor. This ensures that large fleets of logistics or capital ships cannot keep the structure alive under large scale fire. "

There IS value in using these modules, those that have used them or had them used against them know that. Any real buff of these modules will likely make them overpowered.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/better-living-through-mobile-structures/


by range i meant anchor range to gates and stations.


Maybe you skipped the first sentence?
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-09-02 19:15:01 UTC
What is the rationale for not having them be system wide? Is asking for a sub-capital force to remove it too great for the super-centric null bunnies? Especially if they were changed to be structure HP focused to effectively deny real time repping them I don't see how they aren't a valid counter against blobing supers doing all the heavy lifting.
Previous page12