These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Focused cynosural field disruptor
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lamajagarn McMyra
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2017-01-19 13:34:57 UTC
I feel it would be a nice thing to have a module capable of rendering a target cynosural field unlockable for jump drives. I am well aware of the anchorable cyno inhibitors but the anchoring speed is just too long to make it worthwhile in small engagements.

Cyno baits are pretty much a scourge of small gang pvp, those on friendly terms with the local power block always have the possibility of pressing the "I win button". By introducing a module capable of disrupting single cynosural fields small scale pvp would become far more exciting and balanced, without severely impacting larger fleet battles as the area of effect nature of deployable disruptors are more suitable with the number of potential beacons.

To balance such a powerfull module it could be restricted to certain ships such as heavy interdictors and not allowing remote assistance while in action.

For those who have not been subjected to the "problem" i suggest trying to tackle ratting carriers in Delve. Pirate
Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2017-01-19 14:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Lol m8 stop taking the bait. It's not hard to tell who/what ships are likely to have a cyno. And more importantly why is your style of play more important than theirs.


(Also if you don't like cynos there is an area of space built for that. There is a reason j-space is the king for small gang pvp)



If it was added then it could not work on covet cynos (as they are the counter to cyno jamers)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lamajagarn McMyra
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2017-01-19 14:29:01 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Lol m8 stop taking the bait. It's not hard to tell who/what ships are likely to have a cyno. And more importantly why is your style of play more important than theirs.


(Also if you don't like cynos there is an area of space built for that. There is a reason j-space is the king for small gang pvp)



If it was added then it could not work on covet cynos (as they are the counter to cyno jamers)


I'm well aware of the wonders of j-space since i've been living there for abput 2 years acctually. In the current state bringing cyno ships to small skirmishes with the intent of using them (i.e not fighting on anchored cyno inhibs) has no real counters unless you prefer running away denying both parties content.

As for the covert cynos i lean towards agreeing with you, black ops battleships are quite well balanced and does not mean instant victory to the same extent as superblobs.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#4 - 2017-01-19 14:53:37 UTC
I'd be okay with this if and only if it had the same fitting, fuel, and penalties as lighting a cyno in the first place. Literally the exact same. You could even simply make this a function of the cyno itself (activating a second cyno within X range of an already active one cancels both, which drastically limits me-too play.

This would mean less throwaway cyno ships, as a counter-cyno setup would mean both ships are locked in place, and now must shoot at one another to determine whether that hotdrop happens.

I like the idea of having a ship that can counter a hotdrop, but it needs to have the same risk/reward associated with hotdropping in the first place.

While I usually feel like "don't take the bait" is the correct response to hotdrop complaints, having a counter to tankbait ships that is of similar cost and fitting to the bait ship sounds like interesting gameplay to me. Know that guy is bait? Get your anti-bait ship. Seems like a valid counter.

I also agree that covops cynos should be immune to this treatment, as covops is pretty decently balanced and has a role that would only see more play with such a system in place.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2017-01-20 06:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
PopeUrban wrote:
I...


with your idea who ever gets caps on field first wins

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lamajagarn McMyra
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2017-01-20 09:51:11 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
I...


with your idea who ever gets caps on field first wins


Thats assuming your using his theory of a secound cynofield going up, a single target module would merly prevent one single ship from lighting, hence bringing multiple cyno capable ships would still allow you to cyno in.

As for caps first on field = win is more true with current avalible anchorable aoe structure.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2017-01-20 10:00:06 UTC
Lamajagarn McMyra wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
I...


with your idea who ever gets caps on field first wins


Thats assuming your using his theory of a secound cynofield going up, a single target module would merly prevent one single ship from lighting, hence bringing multiple cyno capable ships would still allow you to cyno in.

As for caps first on field = win is more true with current avalible anchorable aoe structure.



well yes thats why i was quoting him. the only real restriction i see should be placed on this is it should be targeted and it should be limited to a certain type of ship either a new one (though this seems to niche) or to combat recons ( hics i feel would be far to tanky and overall hics don't need another advantage

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble