These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-11-09 18:57:09 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



There is a difference between random roaming and trying to find some random dude and dropping him because you and your corp/alliance mates are bored, and actually running a sov-attack campaign focusing on stopping ratting to drop indexes.

I fully expect a group of players that want to take my space (for whatever reason, lame or not) to come in and attack my ships. I get frustrated when its more about random drops than accomplishing something strategic.

So... is blapping miners and ratters directly contesting sov? No, not always. I am all for it when there is a campaign or other strategic plan in place. I am not a fan when its basically internet vandalism for someone else's *****-n-giggles


If you have enough control over a system to prevent it's owner from ratting/mining, you might as well use that control to directly entosis his stuff...
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#22 - 2015-11-09 19:11:51 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
If you have enough control over a system to prevent it's owner from ratting/mining, you might as well use that control to directly entosis his stuff...



Not entirely true. If I cloak a character up somewhere, ratting may actually stop and I am having an effect on sov, however small. If I touch anything with an entosis link, I am going to provoke the hive to come mess with me, whereas no one wants to spend effort looking for someone cloaked up who ultimately cannot be found. Why would I want to give them something they could reasonably attack? Also a prolonged cloaky campaign may preface an actual entosis attack, to get the indexes lower.

This facet of AegisSov, where the onus is on the defender and the holder, is good and working.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#23 - 2015-11-09 21:08:56 UTC
I see no reason not to have this
DEATH to all the (badly fit) ratting carriers
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#24 - 2015-11-10 14:54:02 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
You can't be serious?

It actually would let smaller groups do something about ratting capitals. As it stands, every carrier within a 5 ly radius of one you tackle can instantly respond; this is much faster than if they had to warp from within system, probably about 25s, or take gates to try and arrive in time. Cyno inhibitors, as stated, are worthless in this context due to anchor time.

Yes I am serious, I was serious about wanting you to explain your logic and rational behind this, and why you think it would put carrier ratters at greater risk instead of simply ranting about how nul sec is to safe. If it takes me acting the fool to get you to explain your logic and reasons behind an idea then so be it, I have no problem acting the fool.

I still fail to see how this change is going to significantly increase the risk factors for those carrier ratters.

Your proposal may prevent them from calling in help, but in the process it prevents those who would try to kill him from dropping in anything but blops. I am sure that would increase the risk to some small degree, but in the practical world of the game I wonder by how much?

So they no longer fit a cyno to the carrier and instead they carry a cov-ops cyno fit ship and keep an alt close that can fly it.
Feel threatened simply bring in alt, launch cov-ops cyno ship and blops to the rescue. Like above in a practical way how much would this increase the risks?

Let's face facts here anyway, if you are trying to attack a carrier ratter deep enough inside his own corp / alliance territory that he has that much help available to drop on your head then in a practical sense this change will have virtually zero affect on the safety of those ratters.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-11-10 19:07:06 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



There is a difference between random roaming and trying to find some random dude and dropping him because you and your corp/alliance mates are bored, and actually running a sov-attack campaign focusing on stopping ratting to drop indexes.

I fully expect a group of players that want to take my space (for whatever reason, lame or not) to come in and attack my ships. I get frustrated when its more about random drops than accomplishing something strategic.

So... is blapping miners and ratters directly contesting sov? No, not always. I am all for it when there is a campaign or other strategic plan in place. I am not a fan when its basically internet vandalism for someone else's *****-n-giggles


If you have enough control over a system to prevent it's owner from ratting/mining, you might as well use that control to directly entosis his stuff...


I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. You are correct that if you (the attacker) has enough control of the system to stop ratting in the system by the sov holders, then you could entosis the system.

Thats not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that if you're going to make your (IMO, lame) playstyle to hot-drop players for no other reason than you want to blow stuff up because you think its fun, you should meet strong resistance to that and the sov holders should have every advantage.

On the other hand, if you and your fleet/corp/alliance/coalition are serious about taking Sov from another entity, then use every means possible, including hot-drops, harassment, camping (cloaky or not) and any other thing that drops indices and ruins activity.

There is a big difference between those two activities. This first adds up to vandalism, and has no long term benefit to the vandal, and only causes, at best, a brief period of decreased activity, or, at worst, all manner of rage-quitting, frustration and anger from the victim.

The latter is a legitimate means of disrupting social, economic and industrial activities and will have long-lasting effects for both the attacker and the victim and there should be clear mechanics and counters of varying effectiveness for whatever an attacker can think up to do.

Cedric
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#26 - 2015-11-10 19:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
Donnachadh wrote:
Your proposal may prevent them from calling in help, but in the process it prevents those who would try to kill him from dropping in anything but blops. I am sure that would increase the risk to some small degree, but in the practical world of the game I wonder by how much?



I think you are a little ignorant on how vulnerable ratting carriers are by themselves, or how few blops/bombers it takes to knock one out if support does not come. I don't have an issue if defenders are in system and come to help, I don't care if they counter drop blops, even in huge amounts - either of those is entirely fair game, either by the fact that it takes effort or risk on the part of the defender.

Bringing in blops to counter a blops drop carries risk of loss. Dropping 20+ carriers who cannot be counter-escalated, does not. Even large amounts of remote rep sins do not have nearly the repair power of carriers - it would be a herculean task to save a carrier with these, and it would be risky.

I just don't think you are at all familiar with blops or carrier ratting by your statements.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-11-10 19:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Questions and rationalizing, Things that are unclear from OP:

Is the cyno jam just for the anom or for every system with particular anom in it?

The latter is kind of absurd, it just free cyno jamming for any system with a good index.

The former sounds workable, blops can still have their hotdrop o'clock, carrier can't get backup without a delay.
Now with that in mind it also means any carrier hotdrop group has to cyno in away from the anom, and warp in. A good delay for gtfo, while stimulating gudfights for the adventurous and sov defenders.

Workable, but still unsupported.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2015-11-10 22:15:43 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Step 1: Make sov nullsec worth the effort in the first place.
Step 2: Then let's have a look at other aspects sov nullsec.


isnt it sov's fault the bpc prices are crumbling to the ground? you guys even have an afk ishtar fit, so do you mean make people work harder for sov or something else? because it looks like sov is very much worth the effort compared to any other space


I think he means change the income sources for NS. Ratting and various drops are not the best model. For example, possibly switching over to some sort of mission based income source with an LP store and possibly a re-worked/updated LP store. Further, there would be an increase in the ISK sinks and a decrease in the ISK sources.

"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
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#29 - 2015-11-10 22:24:06 UTC
After thinking about this, I see Vic's point.

Anomalies are a major source of isk. If the anomaly can only be entered by slow boating a capital (gated anomalies will pose ratting groups an issue with capitals) then the Ratting Carrier, while safe from being dropped on by other carriers, is not going to be able to use a cyno to call for help.

This will not prevent people from dropping a cyno outside the anomaly and warping to the site.
This will not prevent bloping the carrier that failed to pay attention.

This will result in more carriers dying while ratting.
This will result in people being more eager to hunt such carriers.

I like the idea.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2015-11-10 22:58:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Petrified wrote:
After thinking about this, I see Vic's point.

Anomalies are a major source of isk. If the anomaly can only be entered by slow boating a capital (gated anomalies will pose ratting groups an issue with capitals) then the Ratting Carrier, while safe from being dropped on by other carriers, is not going to be able to use a cyno to call for help.

This will not prevent people from dropping a cyno outside the anomaly and warping to the site.
This will not prevent bloping the carrier that failed to pay attention.

This will result in more carriers dying while ratting.
This will result in people being more eager to hunt such carriers.

I like the idea.


Or people just stop using carriers and switch to AFKtars which are much, much more easily replaced.

Oh and if carriers stop using drones, meh who gives a ****, that will likely stop ratting carriers.

"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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2015-11-10 23:05:23 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
-1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want.

The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about how nul sec is to safe and it is to hard to create content.

Leave one to wonder what the problem really is.


He likely went roaming in Dek and ended up with 3 titans, 7 supers and a gaggle of carriers dumped on his head.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#32 - 2015-11-10 23:15:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Petrified wrote:
After thinking about this, I see Vic's point.

Anomalies are a major source of isk. If the anomaly can only be entered by slow boating a capital (gated anomalies will pose ratting groups an issue with capitals) then the Ratting Carrier, while safe from being dropped on by other carriers, is not going to be able to use a cyno to call for help.

This will not prevent people from dropping a cyno outside the anomaly and warping to the site.
This will not prevent bloping the carrier that failed to pay attention.

This will result in more carriers dying while ratting.
This will result in people being more eager to hunt such carriers.

I like the idea.


Or people just stop using carriers and switch to AFKtars which are much, much more easily replaced.

Oh and if carriers stop using drones, meh who gives a ****, that will likely stop ratting carriers.


Which would not happen without such an influence as Vic is suggesting and people taking advantage of it. ;)

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#33 - 2015-11-11 15:18:35 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
I think you are a little ignorant on how vulnerable ratting carriers are by themselves, or how few blops/bombers it takes to knock one out if support does not come. I don't have an issue if defenders are in system and come to help, I don't care if they counter drop blops, even in huge amounts - either of those is entirely fair game, either by the fact that it takes effort or risk on the part of the defender.

If a solo ratting carrier is such an easy target to kill why do we need this change?

In fact if a solo ratting carrier is so easy to kill then what is your problem to start with? If you cannot take out a single (easy to kill) carrier before his friends can get there to help him then I suggest you go to high sec and fly with CODE for awhile you could learn a lot from them. A CODE gank squad can take down an EHP fit freighter in less than 20 seconds using sub cap ships because that is all the time the omnipotent Concord will give them tand they cannot fly cap ships. Surely if these guys can kill an EHP fit freighter in 20 seconds a wise and hardened nul sec vet such as yourself should be able to take out a single easy to kill ratting carrier before he can call in friends to assist.

Your idea limits everyone but the ratting carrier to blops. So all your idea does at this point is limit the type of ships used in the engagement. Since the engagement then becomes ratting carrier and blops versus blops only it still comes down to who has more friends so in the end your idea changes nothing, you have more friends and the carrier dies, or he has more friends and you die.

After reading this topic my son who does carrier rat extensively pointed out an error in my post. He reminded me that a blops cyno would be cloaked and therefore would be sitting inside the anom meaning that the carrier pilot simply alt+tabs to call in help. Which brings us right back the simple idea of who has the most friends, if you do the carrier dies, if he does then you die.

Knowledge of a carrier and how easy they are or are not to kill is simply irrelevant here because this whole situation comes down to who has the most friends in the area and your idea does not change this.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#34 - 2015-11-11 16:13:47 UTC
whilst I kinda see OP's point.....
how about an instalaunch cyno inhibitor/module, that lasts for 2m30s then is lost/has to cooldown for ages, whilst standard cyno inhib can be brought online? Can only be used in null ofc......

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#35 - 2015-11-11 16:47:25 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
Is the cyno jam just for the anom or for every system with particular anom in it?.

Just for anomalies.

Donnachadh wrote:
In fact if a solo ratting carrier is so easy to kill then what is your problem to start with?

Cyno means the carrier is not solo for long. Cynos are the fastest response in the game, even faster than warping within system. Solo ratting carriers are easy targets. There will be 20 or more carriers on grid within 10s.

Donnachadh wrote:
If you cannot take out a single (easy to kill) carrier before his friends can get there to help him then I suggest you go to high sec and fly with CODE for awhile you could learn a lot from them.

See this point is just funny. See, when a freighter makes a mistake and gets caught, everyone points and laughs about how silly and careless they were, and how its 100% their fault and they deserve the penalty. You can bring about the same DPS to kill a carrier and fail due to how fast reps can get on grid and how strong those reps are, while there is no mechanical way to save a freighter so long as the bumper keeps him bumped. CODE. would be crying lakes of tears if freighters were actually 1/10 as easy to save as ratting carriers, and filling threadnaughts with long winded speeches about risk and how there isn't any. For the record, I have extensively ganked in highsec on targets of all sizes, with and without CODE.

This is sort of a tangential point, but the ease of securing big kills in High Sec is another reason null is so boring. Antagonists looking to have some fun have so many easy targets in HiSec, whereas in null they are up against intel, camps, cynos, etc. Why even try to kill carriers when killing freighters is so much easier? Null will not come alive until it is actually risky enough for content creators to see it as worth the time. The comparative ease of killing big targets in high, versus all the challenges of doing this in null, is pretty evident when you see some of the killboards of the most prolific highsec gankers.

Donnachadh wrote:
Your idea limits everyone but the ratting carrier to blops

Not at all. The same scenario happens when a roaming gang tackles one and then has to bug out due to cyno. Likewise defenders can manually warp to the carrier the old fashioned way. This is a question of defensive projection and having actual risk while ratting. Just as you seem perfectly OK with 20 catalysts dunking a freighter, I would like to see a day when 20 bombers aren't so easily countered.



Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#36 - 2015-11-12 04:43:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
-1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want.

The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about how nul sec is to safe and it is to hard to create content.

Leave one to wonder what the problem really is.


He likely went roaming in Dek and ended up with 3 titans, 7 supers and a gaggle of carriers dumped on his head.

In other words the ratter had more friends so working as intended would be my thoughts.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#37 - 2015-11-12 05:07:42 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Cyno means the carrier is not solo for long. Cynos are the fastest response in the game, even faster than warping within system. Solo ratting carriers are easy targets. There will be 20 or more carriers on grid within 10s.

So let me get this straight.
1. cyno up
2. notify friends he is under attack
3. they stop what ever they were doing.
4. if a carrier then they recall drones / fighters / bombers as required
5. lock onto cyno
6. jump
And all this is going to happen in 10 seconds or less?
In a dream maybe.
In EvE possible if they were in space doing nothing but waiting for the call to arms.
In reality not very likely it would ever happen that quickly. My guess would be that the time between beginning of attack and the arrival of friends would be more in the 20 to 30 seconds range and maybe even as long as a minute or more if things went very badly for the ratter. So there you are back to the same 20 seconds or so window that the gankers have.

To me the 20 carriers dropping on your head is not a problem it only serves to illustrate my point about friends. He has 10 or 20 friends that can and will drop on your head when you attack then they deserve to win because friends. He has them and you don't.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#38 - 2015-11-12 07:08:50 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
And all this is going to happen in 10 seconds or less?

With every post you make, you show just how much you know about this particular subject. 10s is extremely realistic, and happens all the time, if not shorter.

Donnachadh wrote:

To me the 20 carriers dropping on your head is not a problem it only serves to illustrate my point about friends. He has 10 or 20 friends that can and will drop on your head when you attack then they deserve to win because friends. He has them and you don't.


It's not a question of having 20 friends or not. If I have 20 friends and a carrier has 20 friends, with mine in bombers, and the carrier pilot's friends in more carriers, obviously the carrier wins. The capital range changes all but guarantee only one side is going to be able to field caps here, which create a grossly asymmetric and unbalanced situation. Local capital dominance is essentially not contestable in deep null.

The whole point of the combination of jump changes and Aegis sov was to eliminate large amounts of capitals from projecting control over large areas too easily. Well now they project absolutely uncounterable projection over areas, ares which are supposed to carry risk to sov residents if players choose to create them. Ratting is defending sov, and ratting should be something that is reasonable to interdict. It's not.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-11-12 08:29:37 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Cyno means the carrier is not solo for long. Cynos are the fastest response in the game, even faster than warping within system. Solo ratting carriers are easy targets. There will be 20 or more carriers on grid within 10s.

So let me get this straight.
1. cyno up
2. notify friends he is under attack
3. they stop what ever they were doing.
4. if a carrier then they recall drones / fighters / bombers as required
5. lock onto cyno
6. jump
And all this is going to happen in 10 seconds or less?
In a dream maybe.
In EvE possible if they were in space doing nothing but waiting for the call to arms.
In reality not very likely it would ever happen that quickly. My guess would be that the time between beginning of attack and the arrival of friends would be more in the 20 to 30 seconds range and maybe even as long as a minute or more if things went very badly for the ratter. So there you are back to the same 20 seconds or so window that the gankers have.

To me the 20 carriers dropping on your head is not a problem it only serves to illustrate my point about friends. He has 10 or 20 friends that can and will drop on your head when you attack then they deserve to win because friends. He has them and you don't.


Actually, if I was in a carrier ratting, and a buddy was tackled and he popped a cyno and called for help, and there were 10-15 of us also in carriers...I'd abandon my drones and jump. I'd pop new drones once I loaded grid and start shooting targets, repping the guy who was tackled/getting killed, etc. Eventually, if I could get back to my drones I'd reconnect and pick them up...if they were still alive, but 9-10 sentries would be worth saving a buddy's carrier. So yeah, 10 seconds or close enough to make the issue moot.

My problem with Vic's proposal is that he wants to have CCP ensure that the solo ratting carrier is always solo unless others are in system and can warp. This is just lazy game play and Vic has done nothing to demonstrate why such a change is needed.

He complains that NS is too safe, but clearly he and his buddies go out and try to make it less safe. His opponents adapt and make it harder for him...and like the HS carebears who whine about freighter ganking, Vic runs to CCP begging to have his game buffed and his opponents nerfed.

"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
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#40 - 2015-11-12 09:17:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
My problem with Vic's proposal is that he wants to have CCP ensure that the solo ratting carrier is always solo unless others are in system and can warp. This is just lazy game play and Vic has done nothing to demonstrate why such a change is needed.


As said previously, I don't care how many blops get counter dropped on me. Yes, using unsupported capitals should be risky, and if you are the only capital in system, you should be at risk, and people should have ways to ruin your day that are reasonable. Never forget that the cornerstone of this game is that you can have your day ruined by someone else; this is largely not true for ratting carriers in deep null. Does it happen? Yes, but that doesn't mean it happens enough given the sheer amount of them out there. Risk free ISK is bad for the game, as is risk free sov defense.


Teckos Pech wrote:

He complains that NS is too safe, but clearly he and his buddies go out and try to make it less safe. His opponents adapt and make it harder for him...and like the HS carebears who whine about freighter ganking, Vic runs to CCP begging to have his game buffed and his opponents nerfed.


This is all sorts of crossed up. When a freighter gets tackled and ganked, I cheer. When I see capitals make mistakes and be punished, I am happy. It is the absence of risk which upsets me as a player of this game. I have ganked in HS, I will gank in HS again, HS ganking is a good part of the game, and the only people who get ganked are people who let themselves get ganked. I have ganked more in HS than the majority of the people responding to this thread: I ran a ganking corporation even. I will never support the HS carebears who want their life risk-free, just as I am not supporting the NS carebears who want their ratting carriers to give them risk-free isk.

I am happy to dunk just as I am happy to get dunked from a good play, or a good set up, or taking good (or bad!) bait. I have been both a nullbear, and an antagonist in null. The people who cry about freighter safety are cut from the same cloth as people who want to live under a nice warm blanket of capital protection while ratting, having both risk free income, and risk free sov defense. Comparing me to that is just plain bizarre: I am for risk, consequences, and game play. There is currently a pitiful amount of risk, essentially no consequences, and a complete lack of meaningful gameplay with ratting caps on a regular basis.

I'm not begging. Its a suggestion, and that is what this forum is for. Even if it is never seriously considered, it is still worth posting so long as it is thought provoking. If freighters suddenly could not be ganked in HS, i'd rally to that cause; it is because carriers cannot be ganked in null that I am advocating this one. Either case represents where opportunity cost for something is nothing because there isn't an appreciable amount of risk, and that devalues everything about the activity and what it produces for the economy.

Think about the state of the game. CODE. enforces their code in HS only. Why is that? Certainly the biggest offenders of AFK gameplay are not in HS. Some part of it is attributable to just how easy it is to dunk a freighter, which again, great job capitalizing, pun intended, on someone else's mistake; that this can happen is why this game is great. People generally do not want to bother with content creation in null, as it is comparatively unrewarding and difficult compared to HS content creation and antagonism. Case in point, a bumped freighter is dead, tackling a carrier is a death sentence.




Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Previous page123Next page