These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Cyno Balance

Author
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2016-12-24 18:08:17 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


60 seconds was for capital-sized cynos, and was a starting place. I don't expect you to be able to light that in the center of a large-scale capital brawl and survive, and that's by design. Being able to reinforce to the center of a fight is very unbalanced compared to other ways of moving and eliminates a lot of potentially interesting gameplay involving strategic blocking actions and positioning.



Fortunately, your idea pretty much deletes large scale capital brawls, so that shouldn't be an issue.

And Blop-dropping (unfortunately, the tactic is pretty binary; either you surprise your target, or you lose the target altogether).

And Jump Frieghtering (Red Frog isn't going to commit a battleship each time they want to move something).
Hello Meow Kitty
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2016-12-24 22:02:41 UTC
Totally agree with the OP cynos need some tweaks for balanced play.
Cade Windstalker
#23 - 2016-12-25 21:15:23 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
When you look at the stats, they seem to tell a more nuanced story. Over the last 7 days, almost as many pilots killed or were killed in BLOPS as those who killed or were killed in Cerberuses, despite the Cerbs killing more twice what the BLOPS did in December (sorry, I can't seem to find weekly stats). As a result, it seems that there are plenty of people who aren't being priced out of their stupidity, and despite the fact that there is a broad group of people playing with them, it's not negatively impacting BLOPS stats in any significant way. On the flip side, The top BLOPS players do bag a somewhat higher percentage of kills over the top Cerb pilots.


7 days, especially around the holidays, isn't going to be particularly statistically significant. There's a reason that the finest grain stats zKill offers are monthly, and even those have pretty substantial variation.


James Zimmer wrote:
On the BLOPs side of the house, the risk is extremely low (which is the reason for the incredible K/D ratios). Very few player organizations are capable of fending off 30+ man fleets with less than a minute to form, and making that the standard to do PvE / mining in null / low is damaging to the game IMO. Once the gank is over, everyone cloaks up, waits out their jump reactivation timers, and then cynos out on the BLOPS. The time that people have to be decloaked is small enough that it's effectively risk-free.


Yes, but that's all down to planning. If you jump someone's Obvious Bait Cyno-Tempest with your Black Ops fleet then you're going to get pretty badly messed up. Black Ops BSes aren't that strong for T2 ships and an equal sized HAC fleet will pretty much chew up anything it can get and hold point on. If anything out of the Blops side of this hypothetical survives it'll be down to either bad point spreading by the other side or the actions of any Widows on field.

James Zimmer wrote:
When it comes to normal cynos, there is risk in moving a fleet far forward, but that's not actually what we're talking about; we're talking about the mechanic of a cyno. If you could magically move from one place to another without a cyno, what risks have you mitigated by doing that? A 20 mil ISK interceptor that may die after it lights and a few minutes of jump reactivation delay? IMO, that cost is far too low for what you're getting.


And generally speaking the playerbase disagrees. Mitigating the risk of a cyno dropping on you is what intel channels are for and generally being able to project your own power. Plus with the new PANIC module it's extremely viable to be able to scramble a response fleet to something like a mining OP hot drop.

James Zimmer wrote:
Covert ops classes have plenty of viability going gate to gate right now. A moderate nerf to cynos won't make the class anywhere close to irrelevant, and they will still be very strong if it's combined with adjustments to intel.

60 seconds was for capital-sized cynos, and was a starting place. I don't expect you to be able to light that in the center of a large-scale capital brawl and survive, and that's by design. Being able to reinforce to the center of a fight is very unbalanced compared to other ways of moving and eliminates a lot of potentially interesting gameplay involving strategic blocking actions and positioning.

If you read what I suggested, a cheap cyno frigate would only have a 5 second cyno delay, but wouldn't be able to move a JF; you would need a battleship for that and 20 seconds. If you're in such dangerous space that a battleship can't survive for 20 seconds, with your opponents dealing with the same cyno delays as you, should there really be some expectation that a non-combat ship should be safe to move?


Bombers, T3s, and some of the better Recon Cruisers can viably go gate to gate. Black Ops BSes would be effectively scrapped as a class by these changes, as would most Capitals in anything short of a massive engagement. Even Bombers and other Cov Ops ships would be pretty heavily neutered since with current intel mechanics they'd be effectively unable to ambush targets in Low and Null which is something they require to be effective.

Your desire to prevent reinforcing a fight into the middle of it is questionable at best. There's nothing particularly imbalanced about it, both sides can do it and it's expected. At best you'd be delaying the reinforcements by the cyno timer plus warp time. That's not actually balancing anything in a large fight, it's just an inconvenience, and with heavy TiDi it's a 10+ minute one.

If one side wants to block Cyno access to the grid we already have Mobile Cyno Inhibitors for that.

Your desire to require a Battleship to move a Jump Freighter is just laughable. You'd basically be closing out Jump Freighters from anyone who can't afford a Citadel network to make it even halfway usable again. There's no reason for this, Jump Freighters die enough as is and the Logistics people have enough to worry about.

Also, to be clear, the issue wouldn't be for the Freighter it would be for the requirement to essentially throw away a Battleship every time you want to move a Jump Freighter because the assumption every time you light a cyno is that someone is going to blow up your cyno ship unless the space you're in is secured to five jumps in every direction.

Your logic for all of this seems to be "but this is clearly imbalanced!" and goes from there, but you don't seem to actually have a good reason it's imbalanced, you just feel that the ability to drop on people is bad and should go away.

You're also relying on some vague and undefined intel changes to make this all balance out for a lot of the ships involved, which is probably the most ridiculous thing about this whole idea of yours. Both because you don't even define the intel changes you're talking about and because that would be *two* major meta shakeup changes at once.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#24 - 2016-12-26 00:40:44 UTC
I have to say. I have mixed feelings on the matter.

Cynos are their own special brand of PAIN.

They do need some looking into, but for what the mechanic does, it does it near perfectly.
I wouldn't mind seeing different sizes and fittings requirements and fuel cost. But then again, I would rather CCP developers spend their time making a better Fozzie Sov, and redoing the corp/alliance structure.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2016-12-26 19:34:36 UTC
Cade,

I pulled the most relevant statistics that I could find, unfortunately, they didn't cover large periods of time. If you have better statistics, by all means, bring them into the conversation. I'd like to see them.

Droppers generally don't avoid counterdrops because the droppers plan well; they avoid them because the amount of effort required to defend against drops is vastly greater than what is required to drop. Convincing people to spend hours upon hours of time on a POS or in a station waiting for something that may or may not happen is a very tough sell, and brings into question the viability of ratting or mining in null at all rather than just making money in highsec with an alt, or jumpcloning to high when you need some isk. Considering the sheer volume of unoccupied systems in null compared to the bustling activity of highsec, it appears that many people have come to this conclusion.

It's pretty bold of you to say that your opinion represents the playerbase. There are many opinions on this issue. Some like it, some hate it, and some just want to run numbers in Jita or explore things in wormholes and couldn't care less.

The PANIC module helps one type of activity, and makes response fleets a bit more viable for that activity, but in my opinion, it addresses the symptom of the issue, not the issue itself.

When it comes to covert ops viability, I said from the beginning that changes would need to be made to intel. Later in the thread, I even suggested changes, though I do have a few misgivings with my own idea, and it probably would need some tweaks.

Captals would still be extremely viable if these changes were made. You don't need a battleship to bring them in, you need 1500 PG (which you can get on a T1 cruiser. In fact, as I look at the numbers, I may have made the requirement too small) and 20 seconds. However, you do mention sacrificial battleships, which is not the intent of this idea at all. Perhaps the overall time of the cyno could be reduced, it would make the cyno ship more survivable after the jump is complete.

For large fleet fights, cynos are not balanced with other ways of positioning forces. Mobile cyno inhibitors are not survivable and cover a pitifully small section of space, especially considering the range of carriers and the size of citadels. System cyno jammers are viable, and add a lot of interesting gameplay as people try to take them down in order to bring a capital fleet in. This would add another layer onto that so there's still some counterplay and strategy after the system cyno jammer goes down.

When it comes to jump freighters, they already get special abilities when it comes to jump fatigue. If it's an issue, you could put it onto this too so they could go through a small or medium cyno rather than just a large or capital one.
Iain Cariaba
#26 - 2016-12-26 19:56:06 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Cade,

I pulled the most relevant statistics that I could find, unfortunately, they didn't cover large periods of time. If you have better statistics, by all means, bring them into the conversation. I'd like to see them.

Droppers generally don't avoid counterdrops because the droppers plan well; they avoid them because the amount of effort required to defend against drops is vastly greater than what is required to drop. Convincing people to spend hours upon hours of time on a POS or in a station waiting for something that may or may not happen is a very tough sell, and brings into question the viability of ratting or mining in null at all rather than just making money in highsec with an alt, or jumpcloning to high when you need some isk. Considering the sheer volume of unoccupied systems in null compared to the bustling activity of highsec, it appears that many people have come to this conclusion.

It's pretty bold of you to say that your opinion represents the playerbase. There are many opinions on this issue. Some like it, some hate it, and some just want to run numbers in Jita or explore things in wormholes and couldn't care less.

The PANIC module helps one type of activity, and makes response fleets a bit more viable for that activity, but in my opinion, it addresses the symptom of the issue, not the issue itself.

When it comes to covert ops viability, I said from the beginning that changes would need to be made to intel. Later in the thread, I even suggested changes, though I do have a few misgivings with my own idea, and it probably would need some tweaks.

Captals would still be extremely viable if these changes were made. You don't need a battleship to bring them in, you need 1500 PG (which you can get on a T1 cruiser. In fact, as I look at the numbers, I may have made the requirement too small) and 20 seconds. However, you do mention sacrificial battleships, which is not the intent of this idea at all. Perhaps the overall time of the cyno could be reduced, it would make the cyno ship more survivable after the jump is complete.

For large fleet fights, cynos are not balanced with other ways of positioning forces. Mobile cyno inhibitors are not survivable and cover a pitifully small section of space, especially considering the range of carriers and the size of citadels. System cyno jammers are viable, and add a lot of interesting gameplay as people try to take them down in order to bring a capital fleet in. This would add another layer onto that so there's still some counterplay and strategy after the system cyno jammer goes down.

When it comes to jump freighters, they already get special abilities when it comes to jump fatigue. If it's an issue, you could put it onto this too so they could go through a small or medium cyno rather than just a large or capital one.

Not a single issue you raised here applies to the mechanics of cynos. Each and every one of them is either a personnel or personal issue.

Apparently cynos is this seasons "highsec ganking/wardec" level issue for nullsec. Same level of compelling argument on the "it needs changed cause I don't like it" side. Actually, looking at it again, I'm seeing you use the exact same arguments as the people trying to nerf non-consensual PvP out of highsec. I guess, in a way, you really are trying to accomplish the same goals. You're just trying to get non-consensual PvP removed for you.
Cade Windstalker
#27 - 2016-12-27 03:25:22 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Cade,

I pulled the most relevant statistics that I could find, unfortunately, they didn't cover large periods of time. If you have better statistics, by all means, bring them into the conversation. I'd like to see them.

Droppers generally don't avoid counterdrops because the droppers plan well; they avoid them because the amount of effort required to defend against drops is vastly greater than what is required to drop. Convincing people to spend hours upon hours of time on a POS or in a station waiting for something that may or may not happen is a very tough sell, and brings into question the viability of ratting or mining in null at all rather than just making money in highsec with an alt, or jumpcloning to high when you need some isk. Considering the sheer volume of unoccupied systems in null compared to the bustling activity of highsec, it appears that many people have come to this conclusion.


Your premise here is just kind of wrong. For a start, we have the PANIC module now, which fixes the main problem non-combat fleets had with dealing with dropper which was response time. Everything that isn't an anchored Rorqual can and will dock up as soon as a hostile enters system and either wait it out or scramble a response fleet. I know for most of the groups I know people in or have flown with myself the response would be to grab a PvP ship and go try to shoot the bugger, because hey something to shoot!

Similarly groups have started to have people PvEing or even roaming around looking for fights also be in intel channels and ready to respond. That way no one needs to be sitting in a POS they just need to be paying attention to pings.

Yes, lots of people live or have alts in High Sec, but that's never going to change and is not an indication that Null is too dangerous or isn't attracting players, it just attracts players looking for different things.

James Zimmer wrote:
It's pretty bold of you to say that your opinion represents the playerbase. There are many opinions on this issue. Some like it, some hate it, and some just want to run numbers in Jita or explore things in wormholes and couldn't care less.

The PANIC module helps one type of activity, and makes response fleets a bit more viable for that activity, but in my opinion, it addresses the symptom of the issue, not the issue itself.

When it comes to covert ops viability, I said from the beginning that changes would need to be made to intel. Later in the thread, I even suggested changes, though I do have a few misgivings with my own idea, and it probably would need some tweaks.


No where in any of this have I said that I speak for the playerbase. I'm sharing my observations based on my own experiences, many of which are things you can see right here on this forum.

I can, however, say with a fair amount of certainty that the vast majority of active players in the game actively use Cynos in some way, whether that's for Logistics, Cov Ops ganking, larger battles, or something else entirely.

James Zimmer wrote:
Captals would still be extremely viable if these changes were made. You don't need a battleship to bring them in, you need 1500 PG (which you can get on a T1 cruiser. In fact, as I look at the numbers, I may have made the requirement too small) and 20 seconds. However, you do mention sacrificial battleships, which is not the intent of this idea at all. Perhaps the overall time of the cyno could be reduced, it would make the cyno ship more survivable after the jump is complete.


No, they wouldn't be, because keeping something alive on field that can't be remote assisted for any length of time is basically impossible even at the small scale. In 20 seconds I can burn down the average PvP fit Battleship with a small squad of Battleships or High DPS cruisers, especially if he's had to dump 1500 PG into something other than tank and guns (which, by the way, is a ridiculously large value).

That leaves me the option of either gimping everything else about the ship to fit a cyno, at which point congrats you've removed caps from everything short of large fleet engagements, or I cyno the cap in off-grid and warp to the fight, which would have roughly the same impact. Caps become effectively worthless in small fights because it's now a massive pain to get them to the fight in anything like a timely manner and you have to almost completely sacrifice a combat ship to do it (as opposed to a cyno alt).

James Zimmer wrote:
For large fleet fights, cynos are not balanced with other ways of positioning forces. Mobile cyno inhibitors are not survivable and cover a pitifully small section of space, especially considering the range of carriers and the size of citadels. System cyno jammers are viable, and add a lot of interesting gameplay as people try to take them down in order to bring a capital fleet in. This would add another layer onto that so there's still some counterplay and strategy after the system cyno jammer goes down.

When it comes to jump freighters, they already get special abilities when it comes to jump fatigue. If it's an issue, you could put it onto this too so they could go through a small or medium cyno rather than just a large or capital one.


Yes? And? Working as intended?

Positioning forces in a large fight basically boils down to range control and bubbles, and once you have caps on field most range control goes out the window anyway because Caps are A. Huge B. Not very mobile at all and C. likely to go flying around the grid when they jump in with any numbers anyways.

You're saying this would somehow magically lead to "interesting gameplay" but your justification for this seems magical in nature and pretty widely divorced from the reality of Null fleet fights.

Other than that, yeah what Iain said.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2016-12-27 04:58:10 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
TL/DR

This post does not attempt to address intel balance. Intel balance is tied to this issue, and IMO needs to be addressed. However, in order to focus discussion, it has been intentionally omitted.

1. Make small, medium, large and capital-sized versions of cynos, larger versions can move more and larger ships.
2. Give cynos a warm-up delay, when they are lit but no ships can pass through. Larger and covert cynos have longer delays.
3. Tie the ability to light a cyno with jump fatigue, so you can't light a cyno until your jump reactivation timer has finished.


Reason:
In Eve, there is a term: Risk vs. Reward. You can't run level 4s in a Rifter, because it would break the game. You would be risking too little in order to have too large of an impact on the game. Much of Eve is balanced around this concept. However, when it comes to cynos, there is no risk vs. reward balance. Using a Titan that is sitting in perfect safety inside a POS in friendly space and any ship with a highslot, to include a free rookie ship (excuse me, corvette), you can instantly give perfect positioning to any fleet. Effectively no risk and a huge reward. This causes constant issues, the most prominent of which is the "AFK cloaker" issue, where a single covert ops frigate can create enough risk to shut down an entire system for days or weeks at a time.

Proposed solution:

1. Make small, medium, large and capital-sized versions of cynos, larger versions can move more and larger ships.

Simply put: If you risk a bigger ship, you can move a larger fleet. However, hitting your limits won't turn off the cyno, you'll still have to wait until your cyno has completed its cycle in order to light again in order to prevent people from moving large fleets by quickly rage rolling a single cyno. Here are some specific numbers to start a conversation.

Small: 15 PG, 10 CPU, 30,000,000 kg single jump and total mass limit.
Medium: 150 PG, 25 CPU, 400,000,000 kg single jump and total mass limit
Large: 1500 PG, 45 CPU, 4,000,000,000 kg single jump and total mass limit
Capital 75,000 PG, 60 CPU, 15,000,000,000 kg single jump and total mass limit

2. Give cynos a warm-up delay, when they are lit but no ships can pass through. Larger and covert cynos have longer delays.

In Eve, being slow is a standard tradeoff for being big, it impacts everything from lock times to warp speeds, and it makes sense for cynos as well. Covert ops cynos are much more powerful than standard cynos because you can bring a bridge with you (in the form of a BLOPS battleship) and can safely cloak in hostile space. A longer delay to get through would help balance this mechanic. Again, here are some numbers to start discussion.

Small: 5 seconds
Small covert: 10 seconds
Medium: 10 seconds
Medium covert: 20 seconds
Large: 20 seconds
Large covert: 40 seconds
Capital: 60 seconds

3. Tie the ability to light a cyno with jump fatigue, so you can't light a cyno until your jump reactivation timer has finished.

This is here to prevent people from jumping through a cyno and then immediately lighting another one. I used the jump reactivation timer, because it's the simplest solution I could think of and easy to understand. Covert ops and T2 industrial ships would have a significant advantage here. I don't think this would be game-breaking, but I am interested to hear opinions on it.



Your attempt to mitigate and eliminate your own risk is duly noted and rejected.

Next bad idea?

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2016-12-27 05:48:12 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:

In Eve, there is a term: Risk vs. Reward. You can't run level 4s in a Rifter, because it would break the game. You would be risking too little in order to have too large of an impact on the game. Much of Eve is balanced around this concept.


I am also going to comment on this breath takingly bad statement of yours. Yes, it is true, your statement. But when it comes to missions that is the only part of the game that is nearly free of PvP.

For example, look at mining. If I show up in a belt and then you warp in, we are in competition to get those resources. If we both sell stuff on the same market, we are in competition. When it comes to missions there is no such competition. I can run the same agent as you can with no adverse consequences. So yes, one could (and should) argue that CCP needs to look at the risks vs. rewards.

However, for every other aspect of the game it is NOT CCP's business unless something is broken (e.g. tracking titans). If you are a complete doorknob and take on enormous levels of risk and I decide to take advantage of your foolishness it is literally no business of CCP's that you were dumb as a doorknob. That is your problem and in absolutely no way a concern for CCP. The problem can be fixed by you not being dumb as a doorknob.

The use of cynos falls into this latter category. Players can use cynos to take advantage of other players' foolishness. You decide to rat, alone in a system with a guy your are 99.999% sure is cloaked and can use a covert cyno and you are not on comms, have no cyno of your own, and are not in the standing fleet...well you were dumb. At that point you deserve what you get. This entire game is built around the notions of emergence and spontaneous order--i.e. the sandbox. There is no such thing as a fair fight.

"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

Deckel
Island Paradise
#30 - 2016-12-27 21:54:23 UTC
The only thing I really agree with, is that risking a single cheap and tiny T1 frig to bring in a huge fleet seems grossly misplaced. I would suggest that Cynos work a bit like a wormhole. By this I mean that each lighting of a Cyno should have a mass limit. This limit will be determined by the amount a Cap that is used to initiate the Cyno (with Cynos automatically draining all cap from a ship when lit)

This would mean that to bring any reasonably sized fleet a cap-boosted cruiser or larger ship would be needed, otherwise the Cyno and Jump-tunnel may collapse after a single ship goes through.
Cade Windstalker
#31 - 2016-12-27 22:12:54 UTC
Deckel wrote:
The only thing I really agree with, is that risking a single cheap and tiny T1 frig to bring in a huge fleet seems grossly misplaced. I would suggest that Cynos work a bit like a wormhole. By this I mean that each lighting of a Cyno should have a mass limit. This limit will be determined by the amount a Cap that is used to initiate the Cyno (with Cynos automatically draining all cap from a ship when lit)

This would mean that to bring any reasonably sized fleet a cap-boosted cruiser or larger ship would be needed, otherwise the Cyno and Jump-tunnel may collapse after a single ship goes through.


Functionally this rarely if ever happens. The only time you're using a tiny frigate to move a massive fleet is when literally the only thing you're doing is moving it. The rest of the time you have the cyno fitted to a ship that will survive more than half a second after warping on grid, since if the cyno ship gets popped then anyone who jumps in the space of time between then and when the beacon disappears will be scattered around the system.

Tying Cynos to cap on the receiving ship, especially in any way that could collapse a cyno, would be a mess since turning off a Cyno would actually be a benefit to the activating ship in most cases, and cynos involve sending ships between nodes, which means the ship running the cyno won't actually know anyone's used it until they arrive, which would mean either the aforementioned scattering or no functional difference from right now unless someone is *really* late hitting the jump button.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#32 - 2016-12-27 23:23:22 UTC
Cynos are fine.

They are one of the few ways to get people to commit to fights in a game where avoiding fights is entirely too easy due to warp mechanics, local, and dscan.

Plus, hotdropping simply existing makes the game more fun, not less, for everyone that understands EVE PvP is like 60% intel, 20% traps, and 20% actual shooting at each other in spaceships.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2017-01-01 03:46:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:

In Eve, there is a term: Risk vs. Reward. You can't run level 4s in a Rifter, because it would break the game. You would be risking too little in order to have too large of an impact on the game. Much of Eve is balanced around this concept.


I am also going to comment on this breath takingly bad statement of yours. Yes, it is true, your statement. But when it comes to missions that is the only part of the game that is nearly free of PvP.

For example, look at mining. If I show up in a belt and then you warp in, we are in competition to get those resources. If we both sell stuff on the same market, we are in competition. When it comes to missions there is no such competition. I can run the same agent as you can with no adverse consequences. So yes, one could (and should) argue that CCP needs to look at the risks vs. rewards.

However, for every other aspect of the game it is NOT CCP's business unless something is broken (e.g. tracking titans). If you are a complete doorknob and take on enormous levels of risk and I decide to take advantage of your foolishness it is literally no business of CCP's that you were dumb as a doorknob. That is your problem and in absolutely no way a concern for CCP. The problem can be fixed by you not being dumb as a doorknob.

The use of cynos falls into this latter category. Players can use cynos to take advantage of other players' foolishness. You decide to rat, alone in a system with a guy your are 99.999% sure is cloaked and can use a covert cyno and you are not on comms, have no cyno of your own, and are not in the standing fleet...well you were dumb. At that point you deserve what you get. This entire game is built around the notions of emergence and spontaneous order--i.e. the sandbox. There is no such thing as a fair fight.


By this logic, a doomsday on a rifter wouldn't break risk vs. reward as long as it could only be used for PvP, since there would be competition. Clearly, that's absurd, but it could easily be argued that a T1 cyno is more powerful than a doomsday. In addition, you imply that one of many things could counter a covert ops hotdrop. If you've been on either side of one, you know that's not true. The real counters are 1. Stop almost all activity in that system. Or 2. Have a counterdrop fleet sitting on a Titan or BLOPS, ready to go. Either way, one individual who may or may not even be at his keyboard, in a cheap COVOPs frigate is able to have an inordinate impact on the game when compared to the risk he's taking or the effort he's putting into it. You could address this on the cloak mechanic side of the house, however, I think that addressing it on the cyno side offers a cleaner solution.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2017-01-01 04:06:43 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:


Apparently cynos is this seasons "highsec ganking/wardec" level issue for nullsec. Same level of compelling argument on the "it needs changed cause I don't like it" side. Actually, looking at it again, I'm seeing you use the exact same arguments as the people trying to nerf non-consensual PvP out of highsec. I guess, in a way, you really are trying to accomplish the same goals. You're just trying to get non-consensual PvP removed for you.


I actually offered detailed reasons why the mechanic is unbalanced in its current state, which isn't vaguely related to "it needs changed cause I don't like it". You apparently never read it, couldn't come up with a coherent counter-argument, or couldn't be bothered to respond. May I also remind you that CCP also felt that highsec ganking was unbalanced when they got rid of insurance payouts for ships killed by CONCORD.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2017-01-01 05:15:58 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:


Apparently cynos is this seasons "highsec ganking/wardec" level issue for nullsec. Same level of compelling argument on the "it needs changed cause I don't like it" side. Actually, looking at it again, I'm seeing you use the exact same arguments as the people trying to nerf non-consensual PvP out of highsec. I guess, in a way, you really are trying to accomplish the same goals. You're just trying to get non-consensual PvP removed for you.


I actually offered detailed reasons why the mechanic is unbalanced in its current state, which isn't vaguely related to "it needs changed cause I don't like it". You apparently never read it, couldn't come up with a coherent counter-argument, or couldn't be bothered to respond. May I also remind you that CCP also felt that highsec ganking was unbalanced when they got rid of insurance payouts for ships killed by CONCORD.


It is up to players to balance risk vs. reward, not CCP, at least not generally. Your example of level 4 missions was actually a terrible example as I already noted.

So it isn't just that people aren't reading it, they fundamentally disagree with it.

In fact, a cyno can often be the mechanism that flips risk vs. reward. A gate camp with a dictor or 2 and DPS ships will be almost entirely risk free to just about anything jumping through the gate. Then in comes a battle cruiser. Turns out it is a brick tanked BC with a point or 2 and a cyno. Once engaged the cyno goes up and in comes the 25 guys that are going to change the risk vs. reward dynamic suddenly and dramatically.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2017-01-01 05:31:42 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:


By this logic, a doomsday on a rifter wouldn't break risk vs. reward as long as it could only be used for PvP, since there would be competition.


Don't be daft, of course it would break game balance. But risk and reward are not simply a function of game mechanics. It is also a function of player actions, player choices.

Quote:
Clearly, that's absurd, but it could easily be argued that a T1 cyno is more powerful than a doomsday. In addition, you imply that one of many things could counter a covert ops hotdrop.


Still being daft. A covert hotdrop is not a sure thing. There was a thread here not too long ago about wanting anomalies to be regular cyno inhibited. The reason is probably not what you think. The reason was that way when hot dropping a ratting carrier said carrier could not in turn hot drop the hot droppers. Goons are fairly well known for this, the carrier lights a cyno in come 6 more carriers, 2 supers, and 45 sub caps.

Quote:
If you've been on either side of one, you know that's not true. The real counters are 1. Stop almost all activity in that system. Or 2. Have a counterdrop fleet sitting on a Titan or BLOPS, ready to go. Either way, one individual who may or may not even be at his keyboard, in a cheap COVOPs frigate is able to have an inordinate impact on the game when compared to the risk he's taking or the effort he's putting into it. You could address this on the cloak mechanic side of the house, however, I think that addressing it on the cyno side offers a cleaner solution.


Nope. See above. Hot dropping on Goons was often a challenge because of cynos. How'd they manage that, well they'd be in fleet, on comms and when the hot drop came, the carrier in trouble yelled for help, let a cyno when help was ready and in it came. With carriers near by refitting and reps are possible. Other thing you can do is rat in a group of PvP ishtars.

And what is his reward? At best it is zero because he is not getting any kills now is he?

"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

Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2017-01-01 06:05:20 UTC
The core problem seems to be the extraction. Increase risk by using a cloak timer.

IF you use a cyno, THEN you cannot cloak for an undefined period of time.

This method hits risk versus reward by increasing risk instead of decreasing reward.

It also goes well with a cloaking module rethink that is due soon anyway.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#38 - 2017-01-01 08:49:58 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


60 seconds was for capital-sized cynos, and was a starting place. I don't expect you to be able to light that in the center of a large-scale capital brawl and survive, and that's by design. Being able to reinforce to the center of a fight is very unbalanced compared to other ways of moving and eliminates a lot of potentially interesting gameplay involving strategic blocking actions and positioning.



Fortunately, your idea pretty much deletes large scale capital brawls, so that shouldn't be an issue.


You mean like the stunts you pull to kill 4 frigates??

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2017-01-01 11:34:10 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


60 seconds was for capital-sized cynos, and was a starting place. I don't expect you to be able to light that in the center of a large-scale capital brawl and survive, and that's by design. Being able to reinforce to the center of a fight is very unbalanced compared to other ways of moving and eliminates a lot of potentially interesting gameplay involving strategic blocking actions and positioning.



Fortunately, your idea pretty much deletes large scale capital brawls, so that shouldn't be an issue.


You mean like the stunts you pull to kill 4 frigates??


How is a bored titan pilot with a cyno alt in any way equivalent to making it take upwards of half an hour to move a capital fleet a single jump?
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2017-01-09 18:48:50 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
The core problem seems to be the extraction. Increase risk by using a cloak timer.

IF you use a cyno, THEN you cannot cloak for an undefined period of time.

This method hits risk versus reward by increasing risk instead of decreasing reward.

It also goes well with a cloaking module rethink that is due soon anyway.


I like that as an alternate solution, though I think it would need some refinement. All I can picture now is ships rage warping between safes until the timer expires.
Previous page123Next page