Cyno Inhibitor buff

Let’s make subcap PVP more attractive - no more “suddenly nyxed” when parading out your shiney Megathron or smth.

  1. Decrease anchoring time of Cyno Inhibitor to few seconds (from Instant to Five).
  2. Remove proximity restrictions when anchoring Cyno Inhibitor - it may be anchored near station or stargate.
  3. Price and volume of Cyno Inhibitor module should stay untouched to prevent spamming.

Please, note, that if someone wants to ‘drop’ you - this change will not prevent it.
But it will ensure that incoming capitals won’t tackle you right away.
In case of Dread - you can warp out, in case of Carrier - you can jam Siren, kill it or MJD out.
So, “dropper” should have dedicated hard tackle ship to make you stay and cyno ship at >100km from you.
Want to secure undock dog-brawl (Hypers, Megas, Geddons mess) - just dorp this XXXX and enjoy yer fight!
Not saying about Marauders - they are rarely seen these days - maybe this change will bring’em some love (potentially).
What do you think?

A new type of module for HICtors - behaves and functions same as WDFG but instead of warp disruption applies cyno disruption: bubble prevents ships in range from activating cyno, scripted - cancels active cyno beacon.

1 Like

Unlimited range is stupid. You could just anchor it on a random moon and inhibit an entire system for just 40M ISK. The range should be larger, no question, but not the whole system. Full grid size would be more than enough.

1 Like

Support John, moreover, I would like to see in game a new ship and/or a new module, for example:

  1. a new kind of ship for gangs allowing create cyno disadvantages.
  2. or a new module that could be put, for example on heavy interdiction cruisers.
1 Like

Good call! Never thought about that, but it looks legit yet not game-breaking.

Clarificatin: Proximity restrictions relates to closest object in space (like stargate or station) where you can anchor CI - they are not about effective range which is 100km.

1 Like

So I really go back and forth on how long cyno inhibs should take to anchor. On the one hand, they’re meant to be vulnerable while they’re being deployed, which strongly favors the fleet using the cyno. On the other hand, ships can light a cyno with zero warning, which also strongly favors the fleet using the cyno. I could see an argument for reducing the current onlining time, but dropping it as far as you (and countless others) have proposed would be too far I think.

Almost all deployables have proximity restrictions for stations, stargates, and Upwell structures (in addition to others of their own kind). Removing those proximity restrictions wholesale would almost certainly break some underlying mechanics, plus you could just suddenly spam a hundred cyno inhibs at once in a small bubble and at least one of them is almost guaranteed to go online. No bueno. I could maybe see reducing the proximity restriction for stations, gates, and Upwell structures down to 50km like it is for most other deployables though. You couldn’t immediately undock or jump a gate and deploy one, but you could pretty well cover the undock point(s) or gate with one anchored at 50km away.

The 200km restriction between cyno inhibs also has me on the fence. I can understand CCP not wanting overlapping effects…but warp bubbles can overlap each other to absolutely absurd levels so it seems inconsistent.

1 Like

Pointless, can just move the cyno ship.

Have none of you ever popped a cyno?

I tried but failed to understand which were the reasons of such restrictions.
If it’s about perma-locking station from cynos by spamming CIs - they can be killed (maybe even generating KMs, like Mobile Warp Disruptors do).
Considering CI cost and live time (1hr) maintaining such ‘blockade’ should be tiresome for interested party.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.