These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Marauder Interdiction Nullifier

Author
big miker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-06-02 10:03:32 UTC
The **** i could do with a nullified Vargur LolLolLolLolLolLolLol

LMAO
James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-06-02 12:17:21 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


First, safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor. It is always going to require a scout - whether that scout is a friend or an alt does not really matter. If you want the challenge of playing Eve on solo mode, then play it on solo mode with the tools available and quit bitching. If it was easy to fly solo, then there would be no glory in it. So seriously, just quit bitching.

Second, you really just are not trying hard enough. I have successfully explored and run complexes all over Delve and Fountain using Black Ops battleships and jumping to covert cynos. You just have to put in the effort and planning. That is part of what makes Eve fun.

Third, when I lived in Delve, there was a random neutral dude who had a Carrier and a scout. The scout would find complexes. Then switch ships. Then light a cyno (presumably a rookie ship suicide cyno, since we never caught him with his cyno up). Then bring in the Carrier, which contained all his complex-running ships, including a Paladin. The scout would get into the Paladin and run the site, while the Carrier cloaked up. For months, this dude was able to ninja complexes all over hostile space without getting caught. For all I know he is still doing it.

Fourth, the only thing preventing you from trying this out is your own unwillingness to risk ships. Nothing stops plenty of high sec explorers from finding wormholes with null sec connections, going into those WH's, finding complexes or juicy anomalies, then bringing in battleships to run the sites until someone chases them away. I've spent many hours hunting such folks, which provided great content for everyone.


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#43 - 2015-06-02 14:02:11 UTC
I think that nullification and covert ops cloak should be a mutually exclusive choice.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kashadin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-06-02 14:12:47 UTC
To fit the cov-ops cloak+nullifier a T3 has to make a choice to be nothing more than a scout and sometimes a tackle, tho that can be dangerous as the cloaky/nullified T3 doesn't have the fitting to tank well most of the time, but they will never be able to run the tougher NS sites solo.

Granted a T3 can carry around both a travel and a PVE fit in the cargo hold, but that makes the thing way more expensive.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2015-06-02 22:38:53 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?


That is pretty much your only option if you want to go solo. If you don't want to use that option then accept the risk or make friends in game.

"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

Py Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-06-03 01:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Py Solette
Are MJD broken and not able to get out of bubbles anymore?

This changes nothing to the current game play...... else then making them not fit a MJD......
James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-06-03 18:55:07 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?


That is pretty much your only option if you want to go solo. If you don't want to use that option then accept the risk or make friends in game.


That is the key issue. As I continue to read what people say, I'm realizing that the issue is less about Marauders and more about null gate camp related mechanics, and the massive advantage that T3s have by being able to ignore them.

Compare, for a moment, nullsec to wormhole space. Both are 0.0, where anything goes, but for PvE, wormholes have variety in ship choice, where null generally does not. In WH space, T3s are a valid option, and even a very good option, but they aren't the only good option, unlike nullsec.

If (and given the comments I've heard so far, it's a big if) there is an interest in opening up null to different ship types, T3s would have to be made vulnerable, or gate camp mechanics would have to be weakened.
Iain Cariaba
#48 - 2015-06-03 21:04:20 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?


That is pretty much your only option if you want to go solo. If you don't want to use that option then accept the risk or make friends in game.


That is the key issue. As I continue to read what people say, I'm realizing that the issue is less about Marauders and more about null gate camp related mechanics, and the massive advantage that T3s have by being able to ignore them.

Compare, for a moment, nullsec to wormhole space. Both are 0.0, where anything goes, but for PvE, wormholes have variety in ship choice, where null generally does not. In WH space, T3s are a valid option, and even a very good option, but they aren't the only good option, unlike nullsec.

If (and given the comments I've heard so far, it's a big if) there is an interest in opening up null to different ship types, T3s would have to be made vulnerable, or gate camp mechanics would have to be weakened.

The real issue here has nothing at all to do with either matauders or t3s. The real issue is that you somehow believe that you should have all the benefits of having friends in a multiplayer game, without going through the effort to make those friends.

T3s are, by far, not the only options throughout nullsec. When you have friends to secure some space, and provide you intel on incoming hostiles, then your field of ship options becomes quite expansive. If you're going for solo play, then your options are quite a bit more limited, but that is because you made a choice, and thereby have to deal with the consequences of that choice.
James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2015-06-04 04:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
Iain Cariaba wrote:

The real issue here has nothing at all to do with either matauders or t3s. The real issue is that you somehow believe that you should have all the benefits of having friends in a multiplayer game, without going through the effort to make those friends.

T3s are, by far, not the only options throughout nullsec. When you have friends to secure some space, and provide you intel on incoming hostiles, then your field of ship options becomes quite expansive. If you're going for solo play, then your options are quite a bit more limited, but that is because you made a choice, and thereby have to deal with the consequences of that choice.


You apparently read very selectively, as I also mentioned that a fix to T3s relative dominance of null PvE would be to make them more vulnerable, making friends even more vital. I like expansive metas with substantial room to experiment to try to find the best solution for your situation. T3s are so dramatically superior for solo or even small gang null PvE that it effectively eliminates other options. For example, discussing using a fleet of 3-5 remote repping Prophecys (which is not a bad little gang by any means as it's cheap and easy to train into for newbs) is silly. Why use a fleet thay could get caught and killed when you could take a fleet that, barring very bad piloting, cannot be caught and killed? So in the end, despite your accusations to the contrary, this IS about T3s and balance and not about my play style.

I will make one exception. If you are in a giant alliance with intel channels and the like, you can get away with almost anything. If you think that giant alliances should be the only null entities that can use non-T3 cruisers for PvE, that is your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
Iain Cariaba
#50 - 2015-06-04 15:16:21 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

The real issue here has nothing at all to do with either matauders or t3s. The real issue is that you somehow believe that you should have all the benefits of having friends in a multiplayer game, without going through the effort to make those friends.

T3s are, by far, not the only options throughout nullsec. When you have friends to secure some space, and provide you intel on incoming hostiles, then your field of ship options becomes quite expansive. If you're going for solo play, then your options are quite a bit more limited, but that is because you made a choice, and thereby have to deal with the consequences of that choice.


You apparently read very selectively, as I also mentioned that a fix to T3s relative dominance of null PvE would be to make them more vulnerable, making friends even more vital. I like expansive metas with substantial room to experiment to try to find the best solution for your situation. T3s are so dramatically superior for solo or even small gang null PvE that it effectively eliminates other options. For example, discussing using a fleet of 3-5 remote repping Prophecys (which is not a bad little gang by any means as it's cheap and easy to train into for newbs) is silly. Why use a fleet thay could get caught and killed when you could take a fleet that, barring very bad piloting, cannot be caught and killed? So in the end, despite your accusations to the contrary, this IS about T3s and balance and not about my play style.

I will make one exception. If you are in a giant alliance with intel channels and the like, you can get away with almost anything. If you think that giant alliances should be the only null entities that can use non-T3 cruisers for PvE, that is your opinion, but I strongly disagree.

No, this thread is about your desire to have your cake, and eat it too. You posted that you want interdiction nullification on Marauders so that you can go do PvE without having to worry about gate camps. Now you are trying to derail your own thread into discussing a supposed imbalance involving t3s. I'm not reading selectively, I'm merely staying on topic of your thread.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2015-06-04 15:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
James Zimmer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?


That is pretty much your only option if you want to go solo. If you don't want to use that option then accept the risk or make friends in game.


That is the key issue. As I continue to read what people say, I'm realizing that the issue is less about Marauders and more about null gate camp related mechanics, and the massive advantage that T3s have by being able to ignore them.

Compare, for a moment, nullsec to wormhole space. Both are 0.0, where anything goes, but for PvE, wormholes have variety in ship choice, where null generally does not. In WH space, T3s are a valid option, and even a very good option, but they aren't the only good option, unlike nullsec.

If (and given the comments I've heard so far, it's a big if) there is an interest in opening up null to different ship types, T3s would have to be made vulnerable, or gate camp mechanics would have to be weakened.


PvE in null offeres a variety of ship choices too. You are being too limited in your thinking. Ships you can find doing PvE in null:

Epithals,
Exhumers,
Ishtars,
Rorquals,
Transports,
Noctii,
Freighters

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Depends on what you are doing in null.

Edit: for some dumb reason I typed "Ships you can find doing PvP in null" when I meant PvE! Sheesh.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2015-06-04 15:59:36 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


Valid points all. You've mentioned the main ways in which I would be willing to take a non T3 PvE ship into null: Carriers and wormholes.

You say that safe travel in a multiplayer game should not be a solo endeavor, so what do you think about nullified/covops T3s?


That is pretty much your only option if you want to go solo. If you don't want to use that option then accept the risk or make friends in game.


That is the key issue. As I continue to read what people say, I'm realizing that the issue is less about Marauders and more about null gate camp related mechanics, and the massive advantage that T3s have by being able to ignore them.

Compare, for a moment, nullsec to wormhole space. Both are 0.0, where anything goes, but for PvE, wormholes have variety in ship choice, where null generally does not. In WH space, T3s are a valid option, and even a very good option, but they aren't the only good option, unlike nullsec.

If (and given the comments I've heard so far, it's a big if) there is an interest in opening up null to different ship types, T3s would have to be made vulnerable, or gate camp mechanics would have to be weakened.


BTW, T3s are ideal for those people who want to solo PvE in null (read ninja ratting, running anomalies, etc.). Take those away and you really nerf those solo players.

"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

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-06-04 17:03:25 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
This entire thread can be summed up as follows

CCP, I really like Marauders and would love to fly one, but I need you to make it (very) improbable that other people will be able to catch it and kill it because :reasons:.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The reasons why have already been covered.


The issue is closer to this: CCP, out of the 180 or so subcap, non-industry ships, there are 4 (5 if you include the Stratios) that can safely travel through null without an alt (aka pay to win) and do PvE on the other end. Please give us some more options, Marauders would be a great start.


The question is Who promised you it would be safe or easy to travel through null in a large, slow target?

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2015-06-04 22:41:03 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

No, this thread is about your desire to have your cake, and eat it too. You posted that you want interdiction nullification on Marauders so that you can go do PvE without having to worry about gate camps. Now you are trying to derail your own thread into discussing a supposed imbalance involving t3s. I'm not reading selectively, I'm merely staying on topic of your thread.


Sure, because I've listened to what people are saying and considered that the issue may not be Marauders. If all you wanted to do was address the original post, you should have replied to that, rather than responding to a reply of a reply of a reply, where the subject shifted significantly.
James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2015-06-04 23:03:53 UTC
It seems that most people thoroughly enjoy the status quo in null when it comes to the ability to prevent travel and the ability of T3s to ignore obstacles to travel. I'm genuinely surprised by that, but if people really don't want any changes, I'm not going to rock the boat anymore. Enjoy your null. I'll go there to fight but otherwise, I'll stay out.
Nano Sito
#56 - 2015-06-05 01:22:59 UTC
This game's been loosing active players at an alarming rate since 2013. What CCP doesn't tell you is how many REAL active players there are, because their statistics include alts, which have been multiplying in increasingly bigger numbers since multi-boxing became the only way of having some fun solo.

Meanwhile, we get new skins and some other stuff nobody cares about, and people who are sitting on their pile of ISK yell at anyone who dares to suggest a feature that would bring more people to dare to travel through null sec.

They have the game they want, and CCP doesn't seem to care much.

Iain Cariaba
#57 - 2015-06-05 18:01:10 UTC
Nano Sito wrote:
This game's been loosing active players at an alarming rate since 2013. What CCP doesn't tell you is how many REAL active players there are, because their statistics include alts, which have been multiplying in increasingly bigger numbers since multi-boxing became the only way of having some fun solo.

Meanwhile, we get new skins and some other stuff nobody cares about, and people who are sitting on their pile of ISK yell at anyone who dares to suggest a feature that would bring more people to dare to travel through null sec.

They have the game they want, and CCP doesn't seem to care much.


So speak with your wallet and unsub until you get what you want.
Jebel Krong
Dodixie Protection Force
#58 - 2015-06-10 07:06:23 UTC
I have a suggestion which is related to this topic; i.e. making battleships in general, and marauders in specific, more relevant. That is to create a non-covert battleship jump drive/bridge, that would allow battleships to bridge/jump to a normal cyno.

For a simple jump drive as a highslot module this would return some of the battleships mobility whilst giving them the ability to get behind the enemies lines. The jump bridge option would fit nicely into fozziesov by allowing small gangs of non-cloakies to rapidly deploy to a system that could be deep behind enemy lines, thus creating more options for hit and run style guerilla warfare.

Both options address the OP's worries with regards to the vulnerability of marauders during travel, as you could simply jump/bridge past gate camps.

An upside of this would be to encourage the use of battleships, which have very little place in the current meta.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#59 - 2015-06-10 09:49:38 UTC
no, we dont need more of the interdiction nullification nonsense.
The existing stuff already rendered the game unenjoyable and should be removed,
interceptors online is bad enough.
Zapp McDouche
Black Spot on Parchment
#60 - 2015-06-10 09:59:19 UTC
Jebel Krong wrote:
I have a suggestion which is related to this topic; i.e. making battleships in general, and marauders in specific, more relevant. That is to create a non-covert battleship jump drive/bridge, that would allow battleships to bridge/jump to a normal cyno.

For a simple jump drive as a highslot module this would return some of the battleships mobility whilst giving them the ability to get behind the enemies lines. The jump bridge option would fit nicely into fozziesov by allowing small gangs of non-cloakies to rapidly deploy to a system that could be deep behind enemy lines, thus creating more options for hit and run style guerilla warfare.

Both options address the OP's worries with regards to the vulnerability of marauders during travel, as you could simply jump/bridge past gate camps.

An upside of this would be to encourage the use of battleships, which have very little place in the current meta.


If this would be implemented the marauders would needa fuel bay though.