These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Oceanus] Cyno Displacement Zone around starbases

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bluemelon
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#361 - 2014-09-23 10:46:31 UTC
Think this has been said before but i'll restate it. This change makes hugging forcefield with carriers/supers/titans nearly impossible to punish.

For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
Anthar Thebess
#362 - 2014-09-23 11:15:38 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This applies to all cynos, including covert cynos.

This is wrong.
Why? I dont see any reason for this.
And how are we supposed to deal with (super)carriers, assisting fighters from the edge of the field?


Can similar mechanic can be applied to drone assist?
So if you enter this zone , fighters are auto recalled.

Still this is not perfect solution, but it is still better than current possibility to bump every thing from pos , as long as you know how.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#363 - 2014-09-23 15:42:18 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
get half a dozen nerds doing this and it'll go by fast

You dirty blobber.

So basically the pain is reduced with more blues on the job.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2014-09-23 16:36:50 UTC
How about a boat anchor function can only activate when your ship is granted the immunity from a POS shield? You get a shiny button and you anchor your ship to the tower. It would prevent the bumping without having to go through a bunch of interdiction zone and cyno rules modification. It's not like the function "thou shall not move" does not exist in the game in an applicable way for ships. Then you let the game code decide if a ship is protected or not. Other player will also easyly be able to identify if a ship is protected or not without having to test a bump by trying to target the damn thing. Can't target it, then it's in the "protected" zone and can't be messed wit. Can be targeted? GJ, you found a badly parked ship and it's the ship owner fault for not checking if his anchor function was available or not.

Is this really impossible?
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#365 - 2014-09-23 20:25:27 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:

Edit - IDK, maybe its easier for them to code if they can just copy/paste for cynos, cyno gens and jump bridges. But I'm not sure "it's easier for CCP to code it" should be the driving force behind a change. If that was the case, just saying "it's an exploit and you WILL be banned" will likely halt those trying to skirt the edge. No coding involved.


Ease of implementation is always going to be a consideration, there's no way around it. If you use up all your dev time doing fixes for old problems in the best, most comprehensive way possible, you have no time left for new features. (Same for vise versa if you only do new content, gotta have a balance.) We also get triaged based on how many people the problem affects -- like it or not people with caps and cynos are a minority of the game population.

The issue with continuing try to regulate it with exploit rules is that they tried it and it didn't work. It's pretty obvious that this doesn't show up well in logs. And for cyno-bumping you run into a very difficult question of who to ban. The cyno player is the only one who definitely intends to set up a bump, the other guys can't see where they're going. But the cyno guy could be a disposable account. Plus it's totally random which supercap gets pushed into the bump, so do you ban one of them or all?


Frostys Virpio wrote:
How about a boat anchor function can only activate when your ship is granted the immunity from a POS shield? You get a shiny button and you anchor your ship to the tower. It would prevent the bumping


It would also prevent bumping by people who do have your password, which is one of the bits of the game that most people want to preserve.
Anthar Thebess
#366 - 2014-09-24 08:55:52 UTC
"Anchoring ship" within pos shields could be some solution.
This would require a lot of work , and creating cyno free zone is probably much easier.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#367 - 2014-09-24 12:32:31 UTC
Why not instead of just Changing the Cyno Location.. Force the bumpable ships out of the Shield to Bridge. If these changes are supposed to Force Risk and Conflict, with other ships slowly being moved out from behind a shield like Command ships and stated in the command ship log, Industrial boosters as well. Why not Push the titans and Blops ships that much further out also.

Stop these ships from having a reason to Hug the edge of a shield. Make them Partake in the risk also and move outside of the shield Fully. Put a X range of tower activation range. Will make more roles in active fleets from protecting the titan and create new strategies and remove yet another level of hiding from the Game. If you want risk and conflict.. Push it..
Amantus
Drexciyan Sea Unit
SPACE DETROIT
#368 - 2014-09-24 13:01:25 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
you're still going on about that flag thing? lol



Good to know you're not the only one who goes on about the flag constantly.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#369 - 2014-09-24 17:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
By the looks of this thread "shield hugger bumping" appears to be one of the best forms of pvp null has to offer. If the highlight of your night is A) doing something while hugging a POS shield or B) trying to punish someone doing something while hugging a POS shield - maybe examine what you are doing in the eve universe.

POS shield bumping seems like a rather small slice of eve to have this much hoo haw devoted to it.

They didn't just fix a sploit here, they made eve better.
Anthar Thebess
#370 - 2014-09-25 08:24:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Can we at the same time get bigger siphon distance from the pos shield?

So we can easily place it outside cyno free zone , and covert cyno hotdrop person that will come to kill this siphon.

At the same time can we get pos structure that will work on pos like MCI ?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#371 - 2014-09-25 10:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Duranin
Skia Aumer wrote:
And how are we supposed to deal with (super)carriers, assisting fighters from the edge of the field?

You do know that it's possible to move your ship without the help of a titan, right?

Bluemelon wrote:
Think this has been said before but i'll restate it. This change makes hugging forcefield with carriers/supers/titans nearly impossible to punish.

I've killed plenty of force field hugging carriers in w-space. You don't need to use exploits to kill them.
Anthar Thebess
#372 - 2014-09-25 11:20:08 UTC
Webs + dps , nothing more needed

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#373 - 2014-09-25 20:39:15 UTC
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand a lot of people are going to get hotdropped attempting to burn 25km back to their pos. Of course, they can light at a station and just slow warp to the pos if they aren't supers. On the other hand, this could prevent spies from grief bumping Capitals and supercaps out of pos shields. Hmm wait, cant you dock ships in ship maintenance arrays? 
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#374 - 2014-09-26 14:22:58 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This applies to all cynos, including covert cynos.

This is wrong.
Why? I dont see any reason for this.
And how are we supposed to deal with (super)carriers, assisting fighters from the edge of the field?


Can similar mechanic can be applied to drone assist?
So if you enter this zone , fighters are auto recalled.

Still this is not perfect solution, but it is still better than current possibility to bump every thing from pos , as long as you know how.




Removing drone assist would make this a non issue. Keeping the assignment of fighters intact, I would be on board w/ the 'no cyno' zone also being a 'no assignment' zone. Another approach would be that you lose (permanant) contact w/ any assigned fighters if your dock or enter a pos shield.

Just make it so you can't reconnect if you dock or pos up. The assigning pilot can then make the choice to hang in there until the fighters return or save his bacon at the expense of his fighters.

Oddly enough it would add a mechaninc where you could intentionally bump a carrier into the pos shields to relieve him of his fighters. What's not to like about that?? If you want to play pos shield hero then you risked your fighters/bombers being bumped out of your posession.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#375 - 2014-09-27 21:49:34 UTC
Why not take this up to 11 and prevent cynos on stations?

Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#376 - 2014-09-27 22:48:08 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Why not take this up to 11 and prevent cynos on stations?

Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.

THIS
Moving caps is currently way too save.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#377 - 2014-09-28 19:40:57 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:


Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.


You do know that no one moves a jump freighter in low sec and null sec "solo," right? Using a cyno already makes it not a "solo" activity.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#378 - 2014-09-28 22:27:10 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:


Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.


You do know that no one moves a jump freighter in low sec and null sec "solo," right? Using a cyno already makes it not a "solo" activity.


You know what I mean.

Cynos on stations reduce most of the risk of moving caps.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Patty Loveless
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#379 - 2014-10-01 17:27:34 UTC
Firstly, I fully agree that the change was good, but I also disagree that the cyno-bumping was/is the only exploit happening here.
At least when assigning fighters, the carrier in question needs to be outside the forcefield.

How is it not an exploit when a titan, inside a forcefield, bridges ships from outside the forcefield?

Surely if CCP deems that any form of interaction between a ship outside the forcefield and inside the forcefield is not intended and an exploit, than these types of titan bridges should be considered exploits as well. If a Titan wished to bridge pilots outside the forcefield, it should have to be outside the forcefield as well, right?
MMak
State War Academy
Caldari State
#380 - 2014-10-02 03:16:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie is raving