An idea to Curb Cyno Force Projection

(Robby Rova) #1

tldr; Add fuel requirements, skills reqs, mass reqs and different modules to the cyno vessel itself. Forcing them to take a risk to bringing in force. Make them act a bit more like wormholes!

Simply, the idea that a Heron lighting a cyno for 50 titans is trash and shouldn’t exist. Cyno’s should follow wormhole mechanics where a function of the fuel inputted should equal the amount of mass that can go through it.

Step 1: Split cyno’s into 3 types, Capitals, Subcap and covert level cynos. Subcaps designed for ~50 Battlecruisers, covops for about 20-30 blops and capitals for 1-2 titans. Capital sized can still open bridges where you can shove ~300 ferox’s through. Subcap size should be enough to drop a 50ish ferox’s through, where a Titan Bridge can still take. But, covert’s will remain special allowing 30 blops through. Mass requirements are sort of skewed already, so limit the size of the ship who can go through any given cyno at any given time.

Step 2: Make the fitting requirements relevant as well, where cap cynos can only be generated by caps and subcaps by subcaps. Set the DST as a standard capital lighter TBH. Give DSTs the ability to light capital cynos(Pg/cpu reduction requirement), give combat recons/t3 cov subsystem a bonus to mass for cov ops cynos from fuel requirements(Give them an actual role that’s healthy) so a buzzard can’t drop 30 blops, and make subcap cynos into 3 groups themselves(small, medium, large) how much fuel you load should allow how many ships can fit through it, note: bridges are the only way to get to these.

Step 3: Make the capital cyno pricey, like 200-500mil. Pretty straightforward, you want to project caps, gotta have a bigger risk!

Step 4: Add fuel requirements, simply put, since you should only allow so much through for a size, you can only do it once in certain ships. For example a frigate fits a med cyno and loads 2000 ozone, it can’t hold 2000 ozone in its hold, therefore it can’t reload and can’t light another. This forces people to make fitting choices.

Step 5: Add a skill to go along with it, maybe Jump Drive Op? Between this and the actual skills to drive the ships to light them with it makes the cyno mechanic someone has to actually train for, just like everything else in eve. It blows my mind a 200k sp character can project 50+ titans.

Step 6: Add a cyno distance limitation or timer, ie: can’t light another cyno within 10-25km from a previously lit cyno for 1 minute or even better, give a ship a 1-2 minute timer before they’re able to light another cyno after taking one (Like a wormhole polarization timer). This stops a block from dropping 50 mastodons and lighting 50 more cynos to drop those 50 titans immediately after. If they want to risk 50 dst’s fit with 500m cynos to drop 50 titan’s they should realllllyyyy want to commit to that. So make them. Force them to put the risk on the field.

In conclusion: This is just a thought to make this mechanic a bit healthier and a bit more balanced. But let’s see what everyone else has to say.

Some Scenarios:
In carrier: Oh ■■■■ cyno ceptor is enroute, wat do fc? as a carrier a) Kill the ceptor, b) Kill the 10-15 BC’s it can only bring through. As the ceptor, bring a sabre with you to tackle the thing and bring a few more ceptors to light some more small cynos. Also, make the reqs so much so that say an interdictor has to choose between a bubble launcher and cyno, and not both. This changes the mechanic where you as a capital are a little bit harder to catch by 1 individual.

Cloaky Tengu hunter for blops fleet: Nothing changes, i’m gucci as always due to my new bonus, and tbh this is what balanced dropping looks like(just could use a bit less mass able to roll through the blops bridge, can be fixed with new fuel reqs for cyno ship).

Battle escalation: Drop some DST’s on grid, or a group of battleships that can wait out the DPS of an enemy fleet to bring in more ships. The point here is escalation should be in steps, not one cyno and boom 50 titans and 200 supercarriers. It should be like 100 v 100 => Subcap cyno lit, now its 100 v 150 (No caps) => Capital cyno lit by some dropped DST’s with you after 1 minute, now 100 v 150 w/ 1-2 titans on grid or 2-4 supers.(Or another 300 feroxes) => more cap cynos(Caps lighting cap cynos w/ bonuses) after 1 minute and now 100 v 350 with 40+ Supers on grid now).

Would love to hear more what ifs, I think there is a way where this can work where this won’t hurt small corp power projection or logistics chains while deterring larger corps and alliances to projecting their power on a whim, but still allowing them to do so when needed. Let me know what you think, i’m eager to hear your response.

(Ms Steak) #2

Capital escalations will never happen with this system and ratters/miners in null will get even more safety.

But i kinda want to see a fleet of DSTs bosoned away as they arrive into system.

(Dread Saboteur) #3

Mass limitations, restrictions on ships ,spool up timers ,fuel->mass ratios and so on are all good ideas but the massive blob of carebears in null which are by far the loudest and most represented yearly by the CSM wouldnt accept it.

(Robby Rova) #4

Okay, why though? Can you offer some point where this is suddenly so much more resistant than before? What’s changing is the ship, want to cyno a bunch of Titans on grid? Gotta do it from a DST then have your Titan light a cyno for others to drop on through.

It should be risky to escalate to a capital fight and requires you to commit or loose some expensive ships. Right now it’s pretty easy to drop 100+ supers on a grid, the risk/reward is not balanced at all. It might be when the caps land on grid and engage, but not in the process of getting them there.

This also adds a bit more strategy to the game I feel people will enjoy.

Just to reiterate, I think there’s a good chance to balance this where we get the best of both worlds, and not just a one sided risk free hot drop o’clock system we have today.

(Robby Rova) #5

Thankfully they can whine all they want, it hasn’t stopped CCP from making sweeping changes before (hello jump fatigue)

(Salt Foambreaker) #6

Just another post trying to avoid PvP.


(Elena Laskova) #7

Do you mean the people who drop in an overwhelming fore of very large ships, or the people who think the ability to do that is bad for EVE?

IMO the suggestion is interesting and reasonable. It should be difficult to hold territory, and part of that is that distance should matter, and concentrating forces should require skill, organization, and effort.

(Bronson Hughes) #8

Hard no to wormhole-esque fuel/mass limits on cynos. A cyno is just a beacon for jump drives/bridges to lock onto. It’s a point in space that stays active for a set amount of time. Fuel requirements and such are handled by the ships jumping to the beacon, not the ship lighting it. If you want to limit jump drive power projection, stick with the jump drives.

I can’t really say “no” to the other parts of your idea, but they don’t really provide anything that can’t almost immediately be gamed away either so…meh…


Overall: meh.

(Elena Laskova) #9

As I understand it, OP is trying to make it harder to concentrate offense or defensive forces by jumping to a single place in a short time.

So it’s a *many to one" case: we have one or more sources with multiple ships in total, and one destination.

The “cost” has to be higher than the existing cost for each individual jump-capable ship to do the jump in isolation. In EVE-friendly terms, we want the reverse of a stacking penalty.

This isn’t possible at the sender side(s), given reasonable assumptions about sender-side information (e.g. if the “sender” was a single fleet you could do it, but it would be too easy to work around that).

So a destination-based system is needed, which means changing the way jumping to a cyno is implemented.

An example of an easy computation: increase the base cost of the jump (for the ship that’s jumping) based on how many ships and their aggregated mass have already jumped to that cyno in a given interval.

Calculations would be done at the destination, the correct “price” sent to the source ship when it initiated the jump (at that point the source and target ships are already “linked” in the EVE engine), no jump if they can’t pay.

(Salt Foambreaker) #10

Distance does matter, there are limits on jump distance and there is jump fatigue.

Besides no matter the cute tag line like “Distance should matter”, that doesn’t make the idea good.

(Elena Laskova) #11

NullSec “Umbrella Corporations” are on the negative side of my reasons to play EVE list (for from alone though).

Perhaps the reality is different, but the general impression I get is that it’s possible to become a stable local superpower in nullSec, and stay there without fighting for it.

That kind of thing might be ok for a simulation of the real world, but not for a game.

So I’d be interested in some relevant arguments and/or data, but not in an unsupported defense of the status quo. e.g.

  • Perhaps the Umbrella Corps are actually living dangerously
  • Perhaps raiding that causes actual damage to a nullSec “empire” is possible and cost-effective
  • Perhaps raiders can sap the resources of a bloated empire by forcing asymmetrical combat that drains their treasuries

Anything of that sort, if substantiated, would be an argument against limiting the umbrella corps ability to efficiently concentrate their defensive forces and scare away attackers.

But the reverse is also true: if they are impractical to challenge except by another umbrella corp, and deal-making is more effective for them than conflict, it would seem nullSec is on a possible path to stagnation, with “wall to wall” stable empires busy with PvE, no conflict, and no way for outsiders to get involved.

No worse than widespread botting making the economy harder for non-botters of course. But no better either.

(Robby Rova) #12

Distance doesn’t, but force projection does. This is why player gates exist and they serve this purpose.

(Robby Rova) #13

Power projection aimed at the jump drive’s themselves is not the way to curb power projection. We’ve tried with jump fatigue and people hate it, it got a bit better but it heavily penalized players. The issue with power projection is how much you’re able to accomplish from a 200k SP Alt lighting a cyno. This has to be solved on the cyno generator side as it doesn’t penalize a player itself, but the group as a whole to accomplish something.

(Natocha Daisy) #14

IKR the same way a noob in a slasher can point a carrier or a rorqual. Makes no sense.

This game is imbalanced.

(Bronson Hughes) #15

Okay , say you’re right and this is an issue that needs to be fixed and that a cyno-based solution is the right one. Let’s break down your proposals:

  1. Okay, so what happens when a cyno’s mass limit is reached? Does it close, freeing the lighting ship to move freely again, or does it stay lit forcing the lighting ship to stay there with a now-useless cyno and a potentially confusing situation for their fleetmates? Because if you chose the former, that will get gamed a lot (i.e. light cyno, jump in max mass, boom cyno-ing ship is free to move/leave) and if you choose the later that kind of craps all over cyno pilots. (EDIT: Also, there are only two classes of jump drives and jump bridges: capital and covert. Having only one type of cyno for each really makes sense. So onless you’re proposing adding some kind of non-covert, subcapital jump drive, I’d suggest skipping the “subcap only” cyno.)

  2. Are you sincerely proposing making an industrial ship the primary method of allowing capital ships to use their jump drives (barring capital-to-capital jumps)? Because that’s what it wounds like. And that is patently ludicrous.

  3. If you’re worried about a Heron crashing 50 titans on you, you could make the cyno cost a billion ISK and it would still ge used. Why? Simple, look at the pricetag of 50 titans. But you know who wouldn’t use a 500mil ISK cyno? Anyone who’s flying in a smaller corp with only a handful of capital ships. This would basically hand a huge advantage to the Blue Donut because they know that smaller groups would be less likely to escalate.

  4. Fuel costs. I guess that makes sense if you’re going with different size cynos, but if it doesn’t stop your lone Heron from calling down 50 Titans on you, what’s the point?

  5. But why? You aren’t using a jump dive, you aren’t moving your ship, you’re lighting a beacon for other ships to activate their jump drives on. If you’re worried about the ease of training into this skill, maybe look at increasing cyno fuel costs across the board and increasing the fuel use bonus to the skill. This would make a cyno much harder to use for a low SP alt without impacting things otherwise.

  6. Hello there, let me introduce you to the defensive cyno. All the benefits of a cyno inhib with none of the pesky issues with waiting for it to get online or keeping the inhib alive. Instead of having that Heron light a cyno and blap you with 50 titans, that Heron will now light a cyno, preventing you from lighting a cyno of your own, and blap you with the subcap fleet next door. (Or 50 titans. Either way, you can’t call for help.)

One point that I will give you is that I could possibly see ships not being able to light a cyno for a certain time after having jumped or been bridged. But I don’t think that will really change the dynamics of capital power projection all that much so I don’t see the point in doing it.


(Robby Rova) #16

Not really?

(Robby Rova) #17
  1. Ship is freed, can’t light another cyno for a minute or two.

  2. Yes, if you want to dump 50 Titans through. You can get 450k EHP out of an Occator fit. The point is risk/reward and make it something you need to skill into. Any other ship can still fit it, they just won’t be able to let more than a few ships through due to the fuel costs on the cyno ship (More fuel you have, more mass can come through).

  3. Okay, then don’t worry about the pricing cost and keep them the same. The goal is still accomplished and you’re just reducing the risk, you’re still allowing small corps to project caps, and large alliances to project the same amount of caps. but if you want to bring in more than 1-2 titans, you’ll need to escalate again.

  4. It will, as the heron would need fuel to keep the cyno alive as more ships dump through it, hence the DST/Industrial ships. Ties back into point 2.

  5. I think that’s just solving half of the problem.

  6. That’s why you make it a radial effect, make smarter decisions when you choose a place to light your cyno.


(Salt Foambreaker) #18

We’re stuck with this. The reason is “null is empty”. The great myth.

The truth is null is grossly overfull and only the biggest Alliances can hold space. Think about the Goons, like 28k members and I don’t know, what like 200 systems. They could use many times more systems before there would be enough for smaller corps to compete.

90% of the “problems” are overcrowding.

1 Like
(Bronson Hughes) #19

Replies embedded.

1 Like
(Elena Laskova) #20


I’m not sure it’s a good idea or not to have additional resource consumption requirements at the “beacon” end, but there’s no argument for rejecting it based on logic.

Any limitation (like mass over time) or resource consumption (source or target) requires a change to the “game-logic” of instantaneous travel.

Just add in something like “both ends require a “MacGuffin module” which contains an artificial black hole, and the black holes must be attuned to each other”. (NB: Jump Drives could have one of these integrated).

For target-side resource consumption, use the current Jump Drive logic but require the beacon end to use a larger black hole for a larger ship, and consume resources in proportion to mass and distance to set up the link.

Some kind of “tachyon-field stress” (or Higgs-Boson-field stress) or whatever that wears off slowly for the target module, and you have something for increasing delays between jumps, and increasing resource consumption for the target ship to attune its “macGuffin module”.

If it was me (I like “teleporting”, but I’m not in favor of unrestricted teleporting, regardless of game) I’d require the target ship to have a limited-size “library” of signatures for any ship that will jump to it, obtainable only by being very close to the ship (so their Jump equipment can interact). That way the target ship(s ) have an interesting vulnerability, and jumping always requires preparation and organization.
This would affect large Corps/Alliances more than small ones. It might even facilitate tactical raiding of large organizations’ territory.

You could allow (or block) jumping in cyno-capable ships (the obvious bypass to the “cyno-link library” restriction) depending on design preferences. E.g. you could erase the link-library due to the “tachyon-field” effect if a ship with such a library jumped anywhere. Or not. Or something in between (e.g. weaken them so they can only be used once).

1 Like