These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[April] Removal of Garage Door Cynos

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#81 - 2015-04-04 07:52:26 UTC
Sadr Dillinger wrote:
One; yes it is, as I've never suggested an unmanned POS (even with my suggested changes, POS 'AI' would still **** away the enhanced DPS...) - that is your logical fallacy. Two; there goes another... I have not proposed, or implied that this is to provide a complete 'safety blanket'.

I'm talking about spreading around the risk:

Scenario:

You're about to move a Super, and you've pre-setup a Deathstar (with the 6 fold increase in damage modifier and 'enhanced' scramblers), with 12 large batteries, i.e roughly equivalent to 3-4 dreads. You've got 12 trusted mates with you, 3 log -off in the POS (each with Starbase Defence Management IV), the other 9 form a fleet with 4 Guardians, 5 armour HICs one system over.

You jump, and you get jumped.....
....you mates log in and dial into the batteries, your mates one system over jump in and spread points around. You die before making it under the shield (too much DPS on the field), but the attacking fleet starts to lose dreads, and a super is pinned down, both by the cycling inifi-scram batteries and HIC's. You bat phone, they bat phone.... #morecontent

Ergo, "spreading the risk around"

Not sure why the concept is difficult, or why this would be viewed with hostility (aside from possibly the *want-an-easy-super-gank* crowd... Big smile)


You also never specified it be manned either. You just said you wanted infini-point POS mods and a massive increase in POS DPS. You're also saying that a character with, if I'm not mistaken, about a week of skill training (Starbase Defense Management to 4) should be able to threaten a Dread pilot in a 2+billion ISK ship with close to a year of training to fly the ship well.

Never mind the problems inherent with a POS module (which are not easy to destroy) being able to infini-point, because at that point fighting on a POS is a massive disadvantage to the attacker, on top of the other advantages the defenders already have, like easy reinforcements, more readily available safety, and probably something else I'm forgetting.

The resistance isn't just from the "make this stuff easy to gank" crowd (though I'm sure there's some of that). Personally I'm in the "this idea has not been well thought out and is going to have a massive impact outside of this sliver of gameplay" crowd. With a dash of "moving caps isn't that hard or dangerous if you put in some effort, planning, and preparation" for good measure.

Plus, everything you just outlined can happen right now if you actually have those reinforcements on call. If you don't there's nothing to stop the attacking side from blowing up your POS defenses and leaving before you can rally the caps and bring in reinforcements. The only difference here is that a super-POS equivalent to *four dreads* of guns would make the area around it completely immune from anything smaller than an alliance level hot-drop.

This means POSes are now basically impossible to take down for smaller entities, which would be bad for low, NPC null, Wormholes, and High Sec gameplay.
Sadr Dillinger
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#82 - 2015-04-04 08:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sadr Dillinger
I'm not proposing to change small or medium batteries, so as to make no difference to sub-cap fleets attacking a tower (i.e. most smaller entities) compared to the current situation - only to make the large batteries, when manned and used en-mass (i.e. at the expense of 'anti-sub-caps'), a significant threat to caps/larger.
Cade Windstalker
#83 - 2015-04-04 08:29:37 UTC
Sadr Dillinger wrote:
I'm not proposing to change small or medium batteries, so as to make no difference to sub-cap fleets attacking a tower (i.e. most smaller entities) - only to make the large batteries, when manned and used en-mass, a significant threat to caps/larger.


Which, at best and only maybe, removes the concerns over high-sec fights. Smaller numbers of caps can, at present, quite happily kill a POS in Low, Null, or Wormholes if not opposed. Removing this ability would be a significant change to the landscape of these areas, especially Wormholes, and would further erode capital usage outside of massive fleet fights.

Besides, this is all going to be a dead point in six months, since we have a capital re-balance and massive structure changes coming down the pipe, and what you're talking about isn't a small change with minor consequences that could be worked in as a potential stop-gap, even if CCP did agree with you that a problem exists with the safety of moving capitals right now.
Sadr Dillinger
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#84 - 2015-04-04 08:33:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Sadr Dillinger
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sadr Dillinger wrote:
I'm not proposing to change small or medium batteries, so as to make no difference to sub-cap fleets attacking a tower (i.e. most smaller entities) - only to make the large batteries, when manned and used en-mass, a significant threat to caps/larger.


Which, at best and only maybe, removes the concerns over high-sec fights. Smaller numbers of caps can, at present, quite happily kill a POS in Low, Null, or Wormholes if not opposed. Removing this ability would be a significant change to the landscape of these areas, especially Wormholes, and would further erode capital usage outside of massive fleet fights.

Besides, this is all going to be a dead point in six months, since we have a capital re-balance and massive structure changes coming down the pipe, and what you're talking about isn't a small change with minor consequences that could be worked in as a potential stop-gap, even if CCP did agree with you that a problem exists with the safety of moving capitals right now.
If it has been setup as a dedicated 'anti-capital' POS (when properly manned - not unmanned), call it a 'base'/'staging post'/whatever.... yes, I don't see that as a problem - it would be weak at fending off sub-caps.
Cade Windstalker
#85 - 2015-04-04 08:41:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Sadr Dillinger wrote:
If it has been setup as a dedicated 'anti-capital' POS (when properly manned - not unmanned), call it a 'base'/'staging post'/whatever.... yes, I don't see that as a problem - it would be weak at fending off sub-caps.


Which isn't much of a consolation if you can completely deny your enemy their small supply of capitals. Just dropping a Triage carrier on Grid would be GG unless the guy piloting it is too drunk to see his Overview. This especially applies in Wormhole Fights which are often decided by small-scale capital engagements and the number of sub-caps participating is rarely enough to seriously threaten a POS, regardless of its defensive setup.

Before going and saying "oh, yeah, I'm fine with completely screwing over this aspect of the game in all of these other areas" how about asking some of the people who play there first?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#86 - 2015-04-06 21:49:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Sadr Dillinger wrote:

If it has been setup as a dedicated 'anti-capital' POS (when properly manned - not unmanned), call it a 'base'/'staging post'/whatever....


Super-excellent idea. Smile Must be limited only to V V V fully upgraded systems. Smile No? Smile Oh, well. Smile

Or do you want that thing in your WH/whatever? Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#87 - 2015-04-06 23:02:46 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#88 - 2015-04-07 05:28:13 UTC
Sorry but I think this change is pretty bad. It does no benefaction to regular pilots, supports big groups and makes it even less desirable to maintain a super toon.

Phoebe was a good way of preventing big groups from force projection, but whats the point of this? Make it real pain in the ass for a small guy to move around? Like it wouldn't be hard enough when he already had to set up a POS to move around.The mechanic would perfectly work in a real situation. Honestly, making onlining force field destroy Cyno ship would make more sense than this. This mechanic can not be called an exploit with clear head and only group it helps are hunting groups, as you can see from previous comments. Almost tempted to ask fooozzie what his PL toon is called because I can't see a reasonable reason for this change to be implemented as suggested.

You are artificially changing mechanics which are working fine...making this game unnecessary complicated and even more boring. There is like gazillion of more important things to work on.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2015-04-07 16:29:12 UTC
Bl1SkR1N wrote:
and makes it even less desirable to maintain a super toon


OP Success then.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Kate Ragnarok
Git R Done Resources
#90 - 2015-04-07 16:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kate Ragnarok
Here is an off the Wall Idea.

2 new items or deploy able structures

A deploy able force field.

A deploy able Web array.

They can be anchored anywhere and are small enough to be carried by the cyno pilot. The force filed is large enough to encompass 1 capital ship. It lasts about an hour with fuel. A cyno pilot can the anchor the field to online it after the capital ship jumps.

The web can be anchored by the cyno and it webs anything within a 14 k range for faster warps to a pos or station.

For those that argue super capitals maybe have a larger one that requires a larger cyno ship to use.
Cade Windstalker
#91 - 2015-04-07 19:47:16 UTC
Kate Ragnarok wrote:
Here is an off the Wall Idea.

2 new items or deploy able structures

A deploy able force field.

A deploy able Web array.

They can be anchored anywhere and are small enough to be carried by the cyno pilot. The force filed is large enough to encompass 1 capital ship. It lasts about an hour with fuel. A cyno pilot can the anchor the field to online it after the capital ship jumps.

The web can be anchored by the cyno and it webs anything within a 14 k range for faster warps to a pos or station.

For those that argue super capitals maybe have a larger one that requires a larger cyno ship to use.


Except that the point of this is to remove completely risk-free cap jumping...
Eldwinn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#92 - 2015-04-08 19:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Eldwinn
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. One more announcement to make today for our end of April release.

"Garage door cynos" are a tactic that uses starbase forcefields to enable extremely safe movement of capital ships. This is an unintended and unhealthy use of game mechanics that we will be removing this month.

In our April release, cynos will no longer be able to be lit within the potential forcefield area of an Anchored, Online or Reinforced starbase. This means that essentially, cynos will have the same behavior near a starbase whether the forcefield is active or not.

Let us know what you think!


Some clarification needs to be made here. Anchored or anchoring. Anchoring, like the process of being anchored. For example a faction small tower takes 360seconds to anchor (6minutes) and the same to online. Being that a normal cyno lasts 10minutes you can already see the problem.

I could just,

1. Starting Anchoring a Small Faction Tower.
2. Light Cyno before the tower becomes anchored directly on the stick.
3. Starting onlining the tower as soon as possible.
4. Tower goes online and I jump a super into the tower. Change the password and eject the cyno ship.
5. The cyno should remain up for about 3 to 4minutes inside the shields.

Based from your original text you said, "anchored". Basically you fixed nothing and I found just another way to do the garage door cyno. If you want to fix this issue this mechanic needs to be applied to anchoring structures aswell. Alternatively you could offset the anchoring time and just lower the onlining time for a tower. For example making the faction small tower take 10minutes to anchor and like 2 minutes to online.
Cade Windstalker
#93 - 2015-04-09 03:26:11 UTC
Eldwinn wrote:
Some clarification needs to be made here. Anchored or anchoring. Anchoring, like the process of being anchored. For example a faction small tower takes 360seconds to anchor (6minutes) and the same to online. Being that a normal cyno lasts 10minutes you can already see the problem.

I could just,

1. Starting Anchoring a Small Faction Tower.
2. Light Cyno before the tower becomes anchored directly on the stick.
3. Starting onlining the tower as soon as possible.
4. Tower goes online and I jump a super into the tower. Change the password and eject the cyno ship.
5. The cyno should remain up for about 3 to 4minutes inside the shields.

Based from your original text you said, "anchored". Basically you fixed nothing and I found just another way to do the garage door cyno. If you want to fix this issue this mechanic needs to be applied to anchoring structures aswell. Alternatively you could offset the anchoring time and just lower the onlining time for a tower. For example making the faction small tower take 10minutes to anchor and like 2 minutes to online.


Has someone tested on Sisi if this actually works?

Also I'm pretty sure this would be classified as an exploit at this point because it's circumventing a restriction.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#94 - 2015-04-09 03:29:44 UTC
Should work. vOv

Four minutes is plenty enough to do shenanigans.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#95 - 2015-04-09 07:25:03 UTC
Eldwinn wrote:
Based from your original text you said, "anchored". Basically you fixed nothing and I found just another way to do the garage door cyno. If you want to fix this issue this mechanic needs to be applied to anchoring structures aswell. Alternatively you could offset the anchoring time and just lower the onlining time for a tower. For example making the faction small tower take 10minutes to anchor and like 2 minutes to online.

And what would that last suggestion accomplish? I light my cyno at minute 9 of the anchoring process and have even less time to worry about my super sitting in space. Besides, there is plenty of time to shoot the cyno on the anchoring, onlining tower.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2015-04-09 12:42:56 UTC
Eldwinn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. One more announcement to make today for our end of April release.

"Garage door cynos" are a tactic that uses starbase forcefields to enable extremely safe movement of capital ships. This is an unintended and unhealthy use of game mechanics that we will be removing this month.

In our April release, cynos will no longer be able to be lit within the potential forcefield area of an Anchored, Online or Reinforced starbase. This means that essentially, cynos will have the same behavior near a starbase whether the forcefield is active or not.

Let us know what you think!


Some clarification needs to be made here. Anchored or anchoring. Anchoring, like the process of being anchored. For example a faction small tower takes 360seconds to anchor (6minutes) and the same to online. Being that a normal cyno lasts 10minutes you can already see the problem.

I could just,

1. Starting Anchoring a Small Faction Tower.
2. Light Cyno before the tower becomes anchored directly on the stick.
3. Starting onlining the tower as soon as possible.
4. Tower goes online and I jump a super into the tower. Change the password and eject the cyno ship.
5. The cyno should remain up for about 3 to 4minutes inside the shields.

Based from your original text you said, "anchored". Basically you fixed nothing and I found just another way to do the garage door cyno. If you want to fix this issue this mechanic needs to be applied to anchoring structures aswell. Alternatively you could offset the anchoring time and just lower the onlining time for a tower. For example making the faction small tower take 10minutes to anchor and like 2 minutes to online.


Next up - you cannot anchor a tower within 50km of an active cyno - and the game auto bans you for trying.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Eldwinn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#97 - 2015-04-09 15:40:41 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Eldwinn wrote:
Based from your original text you said, "anchored". Basically you fixed nothing and I found just another way to do the garage door cyno. If you want to fix this issue this mechanic needs to be applied to anchoring structures aswell. Alternatively you could offset the anchoring time and just lower the onlining time for a tower. For example making the faction small tower take 10minutes to anchor and like 2 minutes to online.

And what would that last suggestion accomplish? I light my cyno at minute 9 of the anchoring process and have even less time to worry about my super sitting in space. Besides, there is plenty of time to shoot the cyno on the anchoring, onlining tower.


Apologies, was a bit tired while writing the post. The times would be flipped of course. Otherwords 10minutes for an online process and like 2minutes for the anchoring.
Eldwinn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#98 - 2015-04-10 01:03:16 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Has someone tested on Sisi if this actually works?


I will give it a try later.
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#99 - 2015-04-10 07:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Gabriel Luis wrote:
Current Habit wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This means that essentially, cynos will have the same behavior near a starbase whether the forcefield is active or not.

Let us know what you think!


Just to confirm, on a large anchored/onlined without FF POS a cyno will appear ~52km away from the tower stick ?


Within the 30km radius where the FF would be, you won't be able to light a cyno. Between 30 and 50km, the cyno will be moved so that it would be 20km away from the FF location.


This is correct.



Did you just post with your alt Fozzie?

EDIT: That is so your alt! Forum history is a little sparse there Gabriel ;)

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Eldwinn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#100 - 2015-04-10 19:42:33 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Gabriel Luis wrote:
Current Habit wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This means that essentially, cynos will have the same behavior near a starbase whether the forcefield is active or not.

Let us know what you think!


Just to confirm, on a large anchored/onlined without FF POS a cyno will appear ~52km away from the tower stick ?


Within the 30km radius where the FF would be, you won't be able to light a cyno. Between 30 and 50km, the cyno will be moved so that it would be 20km away from the FF location.


This is correct.



Did you just post with your alt Fozzie?

EDIT: That is so your alt! Forum history is a little sparse there Gabriel ;)


TinFoil Hats are online