These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Anti-Interdiction Nuliffication System
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BobFromMarketing
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2016-05-13 03:26:10 UTC
So as it stands interceptors are pretty widely accepted as broken. The fact I re-purposed all of my cov ops to interceptors because the ceptors are actually harder to kill is absurd. At the same time battleships sort of lack a purpose in general doctrines. So I propose a fix to both problems without causing one to become overpowered or the other to become useless.

Give battleships a high or mid slot module that in a specific limited range(10-20km) around them completely negates interediction nuliffication system. It does not provide any warp disruption past that, you would still need a hictor/dictor working in tandem with them, you would still need teamwork. But interceptors would have a viable counter and BS would be given a role.
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#2 - 2016-05-13 03:47:08 UTC
just remove interdiction nullification it's a garbage special snowflake mechanic that completely changed the meta for worse

also remove 100% safe JF travel, also
Rendering
Doomheim
#3 - 2016-05-13 04:14:01 UTC
In before Querns, Weaselior, et al rush in to scream loudly about how its totally OK.
Iain Cariaba
#4 - 2016-05-13 04:17:33 UTC
Anti-interdiction nullification already exists. It's called a point.
BobFromMarketing
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2016-05-13 04:20:02 UTC  |  Edited by: BobFromMarketing
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Anti-interdiction nullification already exists. It's called a point.

A decently fit interceptor can attain warp before anyone with over 40 ping can lock them regardless of your scan res. Because of how server ticks work. Someone shouldn't be unable to tackle an interceptor because they live on the wrong side of the pond.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2016-05-13 06:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
BobFromMarketing wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Anti-interdiction nullification already exists. It's called a point.

A decently fit interceptor can attain warp before anyone with over 40 ping can lock them regardless of your scan res. Because of how server ticks work. Someone shouldn't be unable to tackle an interceptor because they live on the wrong side of the pond.

Smartbombs

Globby wrote:
also remove 100% safe JF travel, also

The number of dying JF suggests that JF travel is far from "100% save".

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2016-05-13 09:51:16 UTC
This post seems more like a rant than an actual idea.
BobFromMarketing
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2016-05-13 11:47:43 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
This post seems more like a rant than an actual idea.

You're free to think that. However it's not.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#9 - 2016-05-13 12:17:12 UTC
agreed. interdiction nullified interceptors are aids of new eve.
Remove it all together or leave it to T3 only.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-05-13 13:03:41 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
agreed. interdiction nullified interceptors are aids of new eve.


I'd say that crown actually belongs to command destroyers, just not many people realise it yet Blink

I don't actually mind a nullified taxi, the convenience is enough to make me not mad at the missed kills.


If it was going to be changed though, it should not be nullification but align time. People shouldn't be able to be safe via passive anchorables, we should reward active play - like camps. So if anything needs to happen, it needs to be align times. Imo.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#11 - 2016-05-13 13:06:06 UTC
or restrict bubble immunity to anchorable mobile bubbles only. so people who are actively playing the game can stop interceptors.
BobFromMarketing
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2016-05-14 23:48:20 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
agreed. interdiction nullified interceptors are aids of new eve.


I'd say that crown actually belongs to command destroyers, just not many people realise it yet Blink

I don't actually mind a nullified taxi, the convenience is enough to make me not mad at the missed kills.


If it was going to be changed though, it should not be nullification but align time. People shouldn't be able to be safe via passive anchorables, we should reward active play - like camps. So if anything needs to happen, it needs to be align times. Imo.


I would find it incredibly acceptable if the module did not remove nullification, but instead increased ships mass or agility to increase align time.
Malcaz
Omni Paradox Securities
#13 - 2016-05-15 13:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcaz
There is already a counter to interdiction nullified interceptors. Smartbombs. Yet very few gatecamps do it.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#14 - 2016-05-15 15:40:51 UTC
Malcaz wrote:
There is already a counter to interdiction nullified interceptors. Smartbombs. Yet very few gatecamps do it.


its not a counter
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-05-15 19:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Yes, it is indeed a counter, well timed smartbombs will take out many if not most small ships, in particular travel fit ones. Just because you can't fit enough of them on your sabre in order for them to be effective does not discount them as a counter.

Sabres also have very little counter, bubble and hide, they are just as risk adverse and get kills for whatever dies in their interdiction sphere when others do the job of attacking the prey and it tries to escape. Interceptors are meant as scouts and initial tackle. even heavily tanked 'ceptors do not last long against anything.

Just as a sabre pilot irritates an entire fleet, an interceptor irritates gatecampers, game mechanic working as intended

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#16 - 2016-05-15 20:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
the theoretical possibility to achieve something does not mean its well balanced.

noone uses smartbombs because its way too impractical and implicates way too much effort, the fact that smartbombing gatecamps are basically absent in the game indicates very well that smartbombs are not a balanced "counter". People would rather give up and accept uncatchable interceptor taxi as given absurdity.

its all because of lazy and risk averse people you could say, yet the game and its (bad) mechanics should always be measured and evaluated by how its played, not by theory.
Malcaz
Omni Paradox Securities
#17 - 2016-05-15 23:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcaz
Robert Caldera wrote:
the theoretical possibility to achieve something does not mean its well balanced.

noone uses smartbombs because its way too impractical and implicates way too much effort, the fact that smartbombing gatecamps are basically absent in the game indicates very well that smartbombs are not a balanced "counter". People would rather give up and accept uncatchable interceptor taxi as given absurdity.

its all because of lazy and risk averse people you could say, yet the game and its (bad) mechanics should always be measured and evaluated by how its played, not by theory.

Using smartbombs does not require a lot of effort and is not impractical. It is not that hard.

Also not sacrificing themselves to the guns of your blob is not risk averse behavior.
Lucy Callagan
Goryn Clade
#18 - 2016-05-15 23:33:37 UTC
BobFromMarketing wrote:
So as it stands interceptors are pretty widely accepted as broken.


No.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#19 - 2016-05-15 23:51:20 UTC
This whole thread:

Quote:
*Oh no I can't rat with my bastioned marauder 100% safely.*


Nullbears crying.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2016-05-16 06:31:22 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
the theoretical possibility to achieve something does not mean its well balanced.

noone uses smartbombs because its way too impractical and implicates way too much effort, the fact that smartbombing gatecamps are basically absent in the game indicates very well that smartbombs are not a balanced "counter". People would rather give up and accept uncatchable interceptor taxi as given absurdity.

its all because of lazy and risk averse people you could say, yet the game and its (bad) mechanics should always be measured and evaluated by how its played, not by theory.

The theoretical possibility is very much active and alive in systems like Hakonen, Jan and the notorious Rancer/Miroitem, Messoya and even Tama. People use smartbomb camps to great effect. While there can be some adjustments to ceptors, a blanket nerf to nullification or agility hurts other ships more than the ceptors. A Blocakde Runner in a bubble would be a sitting duck instead of being able to maneuver back to the gate or out of the way of a dictor/ceptor trying to decloak it (as one example).

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
123Next pageLast page