Cyno disabling mod

Again, that’s not the point.

I think the idea here is that the module would only prevent the initiation of the cyno - it wouldn’t diasble it once it was initiated.

yes, absolutely

Then yet again the burden goes over to the OP, as the one proposing the change, to provide actual reasons why this should be in the game.

man, you are boring. If you dont like the topic, skip it and go to the next thread.

I don’t, sure. But now I’m invested. I wanna know what bad takes on the game you have that would support introducing this change.

Sorry, OP, but this is a horrible idea, for numerous reasons, most of them already listed. Not only is it a “poor solution” but it is arguably not a problem to begin with: cyno counterplay already exists, primarily leveraging fleets. EVE is an MMO: leverage fleets to counter fleets. Or flee.

Fleet or Flee.

:point_up_2: when you say stuff like that, especially against someone as smart and insightful and usually-on-the-money as Scoots, you’ve basically forfeited any case could have possibly have made. You can redeem yourself by arguing on merits instead of making personal attacks.

1 Like

As someone who’s once seen a null-sec FC start kicking people out of the alliance for not being available to join a 50-minimum fleet to gank a 2-month-old solo-ratting Myrmidon pilot, I’m going to take a contrarian stance to all of the grumbling “let’s not ever change anything” nursing home residents in here, and say that something along these lines is actually a great idea.

In fact, let’s make it an AoE module, and limit it to low-sec space only. The teeming null-sec masses can crawl over each other in their retirement communities for pittance kills all they want; I don’t care. But anything that reduces them to the second-class citizens that they are outside of their mangy hovels is worth fighting for.

Maybe I should run for CSM one of these days. I wonder how many votes I would get if I promise to build a wall around empire space to keep all of the krabs out, and make them pay for it, too.

I’m having a hard time figuring out which parts, if any, of what you just said are serious or if everything you just said is sarcastic :thinking: . I’d vote for you for CSM based on everything I’ve seen thus far, but I’d have some reservations if you are serious about AOE cyno inhibition other than the deployables that already exist (the 60 second deactivation delay and the relatively large cargo volume are like that for a reason)

1 Like

The deployables are for setting up a battlefield for a certain kind of engagement, in a way. What I’m talking about (and the OP, too) is a countermeasure. Of course, I’d prefer if there were no caps in low-sec at all (aside from the industrial kind).

Look, all I want is for people to have a reason to go to low-sec, like we did until the turn of the last decade. I want to make low-sec great again. And in order to do that, we need to give players more than a black-and-white choice of either trying to engage in low-sec content only when their system is empty, or staying docked in order to avoid certain death if it’s not. To that end, I’ve been thinking through a couple of various ideas, such as limiting acceleration gates to a certain amount of time between activations, having faction navy patrols, modifications to local chat (e.g. knowing the amount of people in system but not their names), etc.

Here’s another idea for an electronic countermeasure: something that disguises your ship type on scanners. Not to hide you (that’s a cloak’s job), but to make it seem like you’re flying something else. Efficiency can be controlled by skills and sensor strength. EVE’s whole concept of electronic warfare is limited to a few laughable one-trick-pony mechanics, such as making you unable to target other players, when it can be so much more. This could help turn the game away from an “avoid and survive or get caught and certainly die” duality of hunter/prey conflict.

Add on top of that a complete reworking of high-sec aggression mechanics and bounty-hunting, and you have an actual game, instead of the stagnant, predictable affair that it is today.

1 Like

Interesting… you and I should have a chat some time, I had some ideas about I want to run by you.

But for the purpose of this thread, let’s say caps and cynos aren’t going anywhere (since this thread isn’t about changing that)

In this specific instance, does it really need a countermeasure? The way I see it:

  • Cyno inhibitor placed in advance (eg. on arrival of PVE activity and replaced hourly) gives you a bubble of protection such that any cyno that takes place won’t take place within a very, very large radius - that radius buys you plenty of time to either prepare for battle or flee (keeping in mind it is not interdiction)
  • Then, of course, you have your usual fight-or-flight option that exists with any PVP confrontation, cyno or otherwise

The problem with this module is has the unlimited capability of preventing cynos, whereas the cyno inhibitor deployable does not. Cynos can still be deployed with the deployable, just not within the radius. Furthermore, the distance restrictions between the deployables ensures there is always a “gap” in which cynos can deploy. This limits the effectiveness of cynos in terms of strategic placement but does not eliminate their use indefinitely, whereas a cyno EWAR could, and this is a problem because it eliminates PVP, which is bad. Under no circumstances should we have the unlimited capability of inhibiting cynos outside of an immobile, destroyable, short life-span bubble mechanic.

I do think changes to lowsec (esp. regarding caps, at least operation of supers) could be made, but all else being equal I think this module would introduce a worse problem than the arguably-not-a-problem-to-begin-with one that it addresses.

This might be excessive. The opportunity cost is so high for a module that does so little, and what would ultimately end up happening is that all the small-or-larger gang PVPers which were already using or would start using combat probes would scout in advance to verify the “authenticity” of the signature in question and then gank the target. I mean, T3Ds are pretty popular gank ships for being cheap, low skill, effective, stupid agile for in-and-out scouting, and having a bonus for fitting combat probe launchers, so these sig masking modules aren’t going to be effective or useful in practice.

1 Like

As you have probably read the whole thread, you saw I did my best trying to ensure this was going towards a discussion. This one sentence was me tired of trying.
I agree with you though

and yet you guys are selling the edencom ships cheaper than a Doritos , stop dat

You mean like guns, missiles, or lasers? They are already available in the game.

Just spit-balling an idea. It’s not refined by any stretch of the imagination, unlike my high-sec war and bounty-hunting changes. My thinking was that we have interdiction bubbles that can cover a large area, but we also have ships capable of an AoE interdiction effect as well. Cyno countermeasures could follow the same logic. Basically, if a hot-dropper tackles you, and you respond with the anti-cyno sphere, then the hot-dropper needs to either move out of its range (and possibly lose tackle on you), or deal with it in some other manner (e.g. capping you out, overheating tackle to keep you in range while being out of your range, bringing more people, etc.).

Well, first of all, combat probes are an early warning mechanism, so once you see those on scan, you know that you better GTFO of there anyway.

But aside from that, it doesn’t have to be a dedicated module. Improved e-war mechanics can consist of “suites” with different functionality, loadouts, scripts, etc. We already have a version of this in T3 subsystems, and it can be improved further to create a new class of modules. Imagine something that allows you to do what I described above, or other interesting (and not linear) effects, such as “hacking” a target’s UI in order to make modules appear active when they actually aren’t and vice versa, or ungrouping their weapons, or forcing something to go into an overheated state. There would be drawbacks to using such methods as well, of course.

These are only preliminary ideas, so don’t think of them as concrete proposals for new features. But anything that’s beyond “ok i push butan ur lock range half now lolz!” seems like an improvement to me. And if we provide players with reasonable escape mechanics, they might be more willing to deal with risky situations, especially if we counterbalance this by making risk more of an obligatory thing in the game.

I actually like this much more than my original ‘proposition’

I don’t understand why you are so insistent on some sort of “anti-cyno”. Consider this, in order to cyno a blops fleet you need AT LEAST 2 accounts to do this. Not only that, you need to train one of the accounts to be a specialized cyno lighter, plus skill into a ship that can light a cyno. Then, you need a ship that can jump/bridge to the cyno, which also costs a ton of SP and investment.

You want a module that can be fit onto alpha gilas to nope a cyno, yeah no. You should be putting at least a similar amount of investment into preventing the cyno as lighting a cyno.

Maybe make it locked to HICs only, or a new T2 cruiser type that prevents cynos. That way, it’s not really worth it for alphas trying to save their gilas but possibly worth it for saving supers/titans. Basically, no you can’t have some module that prevents people from using their 10 billion investment (isk + SP + skillbooks) that you can buy to fit onto your 200m gila.

1 Like

Because we hate caps, perhaps?

1 Like

Because being able to magically teleport a bunch of ships onto an “Alpha Gila” shouldn’t be an N+1 solution to killing some poor schlep whom you can’t beat in the same class of ship that he’s using. Bring a second recon and actually fight the person.

What’s the matter, honey-munchkin? Alpha Gila tank too strong? Babby can’t kill ratting ship without fighter support? Aww. :kissing_closed_eyes:

The argument you’re making is literally the same argument that carebears make against ganking; that you shouldn’t be able to get ganked unless you’re carrying a certain amount, a.k.a. the “ISK tank.”

“But I spent that money to get all of those jump-drive and cyno characters, so I should be entitled to kill you any time I want to!” /stamps foot

Yeah, no.

The entitlement is real in that response. With a post like that, you can tell right away when a person has never done anything aside from hitting F1 as per some neckbeard’s frothy-mouthed Discord directives.


I humbly do not agree with the reasoning. You seem to say that it is normal that a 200M ship should systematically die against a 10B one ( ship or fleet ) because it is worth less ?
The discussion is very focused on caps but consider a low sec solo player that gets ganked by a cyno gang of 10 ships. Should’nt he/she be allowed to have a countermeasure chance to prevent the gang from jumping ? He would still have to fight the cyno ship anyway. Preventing the cyno would not free it from scrambling or anything else

1 Like