These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change

First post First post
Author
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#161 - 2016-07-03 23:57:23 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
...You seem lost and quite upset my friend. Might I help point you in the direction of low and high security space where you don't have to face such dangers?

Null defense is not about playing nice with small gang. We are here to crush you and keep you out of OUR space. If you wish to infiltrate and attack those within then you must work as a team. If that means bringing a ceptor/nullified t3 to burn pings then guess what that means you should do? I'll give you a hint, it's not cry to CCP to make that unnecessary.


I am never lost, only unfamiliar in most parts of nullsec or lowsec. I just don't like bubbles, except for when I use them.

But then, we used 2 of them and did not bubble ourselves into that unbrave farmville system with 2577965067076162375664357 large bubbles on that one gate - yes I am looking at you unbrave noobbies, hugging your tether cable.
What those unbrave noobbies don't know is that bubble spamming is bad and you should feel bad by an extra long all not paid New Eden vacation for 4 weeks.

If you on the other hand ever make a thread about no content in nullsec because nobody wants to visit you, I may come back to haunt you.

Citadels on a gate is the same bad thing that we had with mines. Yes EVE had mines, don't create another thread asking for them again.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#162 - 2016-07-04 00:04:02 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Anything that messes with nullsec dwellers is a big yes from me. Screw them.


its not a messing "with" nullsec dwellers, its messing between nullsec dwellers and thus completely neutral to the rest of eve.
Now you can go back to wardeccing small industry corps for their retrievers.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#163 - 2016-07-04 02:16:58 UTC
elitatwo wrote:


Citadels on a gate is the same bad thing that we had with mines. Yes EVE had mines, don't create another thread asking for them again.



Come now I think mines returning to EVE would be hilariously good fun.. till my client crashes.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
G0N3 F1SS10N
#164 - 2016-07-04 05:59:50 UTC
I see the benefits of this. But here is the question: why is it a bad thing to keep it as is?

The Citadel cannot fire without being manned. But it also cannot be destroyed unless it is vulnerable - which is not often. While one can camp a gate 1,000km off with a bubble with a number of ships or ship, you have a "fighting chance".

BUT, at least the Citadel cannot warp scram you... unless it is vulnerable. Which means you only have to worry about any tackle and the bubble itself - both of which can be readily fought.

Give or take... this change won't really change gate camping, just excludes something that cannot scram most of the time, is not easily moved to keep as a surprise, and is pretty much begging to be a target when it is vulnerable.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#165 - 2016-07-04 10:46:50 UTC
Hey Space Friends,

To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far >

Q) Why are you making this change?
A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid.

Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates?
A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free.

Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble!
A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land).

Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles?
A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :)

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#166 - 2016-07-04 11:24:33 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles?
A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :)


I'm in two minds about this... anchorable bubbles do litter a lot of space, but in many places they form an important part of defenses and "owning space". It's the EVE equivalent of building a wall of sandbags and barbed wire.

People are still going to put them up, but now with the added grind of repeating the setup process over and over again at yet-another-timer, which I don't think constitutes enjoyable gameplay.

There's the cost factor of course, but this should not be as big a problem for all but the smallest nullsec alliances.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#167 - 2016-07-04 11:38:50 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble!
A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land).


How do you plan to model this accurately with meta balls? How about instead of setting up the most obvious straw man ever, you address the people who don't think it should happen this way at all.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#168 - 2016-07-04 12:05:48 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hey Space Friends,

To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far >

Q) Why are you making this change?
A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid.


I think you mean they work unevenly, and you want them both equally unintuitive. How intuitive is it that you can make a ship land inside a drag bubble when they're meant to get things stuck on the edge of them like a bug?

You realize you are making it so that both catch and drag bubbles will have the unintuitive behavior of putting ships in the middle of a bubble, right

right?
Rain6637
NulzSec
#169 - 2016-07-04 12:08:32 UTC
The best part is you can use the large bubble itself as the decloak can! excellent work larrikin.
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#170 - 2016-07-04 12:30:36 UTC
I am of two minds on this.

Please CCP stop doing ****ing stupid ****, but you all won't (I know)

Heres the deal, change the bubbles effects to be max 1000km. That way you all (CCP) have your hard limits to the bubbles.
This means any current citadel set up to do drag and point defense won't work, but they can drag the fleets to the front of the citadel and use the missiles to attack. This still leaves some love to the SOV/Citadel owner to get pay back on the roaming *****es.
This also make it so any friendlies warping gate to gate get pulled and placed outside the safety of the tether - which will make the citadel owner wonder, is the bubble worth it if my allies lose ships to reds?

Please CCP, stop doing stupid ****ing ******** half *** ****.

I love you all, but sometimes I just wonder what you all have between your brains. . . its like that stupid daily log on idea. we told you it wouldn't work and you still did it, and six weeks later pulled it b/c it didn't work.
When will you all wake up?

hugs and kisses.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#171 - 2016-07-04 15:24:41 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble!
A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land).

So are you planning on fixing this, or do you consider it to be good gameplay? Because if you're going to cite intuitiveness as a reason for introducing the 500 km limit in the first place, you should consider that this behavior is pretty non-intuitive.

The way I'd suggest fixing this is instead of measuring the 500 km limit between the warp endpoint and the center of the bubble, measure it between the endpoint and the closest point on the bubble's edge (relative to the endpoint).
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2016-07-04 18:03:25 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
I think you mean they work unevenly, and you want them both equally unintuitive. How intuitive is it that you can make a ship land inside a drag bubble when they're meant to get things stuck on the edge of them like a bug?

You realize you are making it so that both catch and drag bubbles will have the unintuitive behavior of putting ships in the middle of a bubble, right

right?

I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchorable that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sloggish speed trap that forces you to slowboat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilomters in a given direction.

So forgive me if I refer to this "dragging" thing as an "emergent bug/sanctioned exploit". I have used the term once before in reference to the famous double-wrap technique. What I mean by this phrase it that this feels like a useful glitch/logic loophole that was found and widely used to such an extent that Devs seem reluctant to remove it.

I can't imagine a meeting where the old developers sat around and drew on a markerboard, "Hey guys, we're going to give players this thing that acts as a brick wall/golf sand trap/acceleration gate all in one!". No, I just can't see that as being intentional in any way, shape or form. This had to emerge from an unforeseen collision of programming that was never intentional. Warp bubbles would not be called "mobile warp disruptor" if they were intended from the outset to also act as strange acceleration gates that slingshot ships past their intended landing point.

The problem seems to be that Devs are trying to control and mitigate a glitch instead of fixing it. Bubbles should shut off your warp engines and cause you to fall out of warp, full stop (pun intended). There should be no way to use a stop effect to do literally the opposite of stopping people. That'd be like landing a scram on a ship and causing the ship to fly a few hundred kilometers in a random direction. Stop trying to make the glitch manageable and just remove the glitch.

If it is intentional for warp bubbles to also act like acceleration gates, it is well and truly bizzare, and it is not reflected in the name or description of these items. If devs want to keep this effect, then it needs a a name change and a thorough explanation in the description of the anchorables and ship-borne bubbles, detailing every ludicrous and silly thing these things do. Right now it's "prevents warping within its area of effect". And that's not accurate.
Cade Windstalker
#173 - 2016-07-04 18:04:04 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles?
A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :)


How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them *and* generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail?

Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2016-07-04 18:08:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles?
A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :)


How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them *and* generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail?

Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull.


Yes. I'd pick Steal over expire any day. Which does not preclude killmails in case you don't steal them of course ;-)

YaY for Free Bubblez!
Cade Windstalker
#175 - 2016-07-04 18:11:54 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchorable that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sloggish speed trap that forces you to slowboat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilomters in a given direction.

So forgive me if I refer to this "dragging" thing as an "emergent bug/sanctioned exploit". I have used the term once before in reference to the famous double-wrap technique. What I mean by this phrase it that this feels like a useful glitch/logic loophole that was found and widely used to such an extent that Devs seem reluctant to remove it.

I can't imagine a meeting where the old developers sat around and drew on a markerboard, "Hey guys, we're going to give players this thing that acts as a brick wall/golf sand trap/acceleration gate all in one!". No, I just can't see that as being intentional in any way, shape or form. This had to emerge from an unforeseen collision of programming that was never intentional. Warp bubbles would not be called "mobile warp disruptor" if they were intended from the outset to also act as strange acceleration gates that slingshot ships past their intended landing point.

The problem seems to be that Devs are trying to control and mitigate a glitch instead of fixing it. Bubbles should shut off your warp engines and cause you to fall out of warp, full stop (pun intended). There should be no way to use a stop effect to do literally the opposite of stopping people. That'd be like landing a scram on a ship and causing the ship to fly a few hundred kilometers in a random direction. Stop trying to make the glitch manageable and just remove the glitch.

If it is intentional for warp bubbles to also act like acceleration gates, it is well and truly bizzare, and it is not reflected in the name or description of these items. If devs want to keep this effect, then it needs a a name change and a thorough explanation in the description of the anchorables and ship-borne bubbles, detailing every ludicrous and silly thing these things do. Right now it's "prevents warping within its area of effect". And that's not accurate.


Hate to break it to you mate, but Drag bubbles are absolutely an intended mechanic, and this shows in the range limitation for the effect. Whether they were originally or not is besides the point, they're a core part of Eve Online and generally make for a very interesting mechanical tool.

That said I can totally get behind adding a one line description of the effect. Something along the lines of(after this change):

"Pulls ships out of warp, and into the bubble, if their warp vector intersects the bubble and is within 500km of the bubble edge in either direction."

You could probably spend a paragraph describing the effect in more detail, but in my experience newbies never needed more than a few sentences to get the general idea, which is that bubbles can suck you in if your warp trail intersects them.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#176 - 2016-07-04 18:12:48 UTC
Kimimaro Yoga wrote:
This seems like such a no-brainer that I'm not sure why it wasn't done back when the grid size was expanded so dramatically.

In general it doesn't seem like the drag effect was intended to work at ranges of thousands to tens of thousands of KM. Allowing this in the first place is a major buff to the tactic, as being within MWD range of the gate/station/etc is no longer feasible.

Specifically looking at the citadels issue, my understanding is that citadels can't be placed close to gates precisely so that they can't interfere with gate travel. Dragging directly to within range of a citadel rather negates that limitation.


Agreed. citadel gate camps for easy pews.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2016-07-04 18:15:48 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles?
A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :)


How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them *and* generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail?

Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull.


Yes. I'd pick Steal over expire any day. Which does not preclude killmails in case you don't steal them of course ;-)

YaY for Free Bubblez!


yes, but you should have to be within the same range as you need to anchor / unanchor to entossis it to steal it.

so yes, to steal the bubble you run the risk of being caught in the bubble if someone shows up.

Risk vs reward.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#178 - 2016-07-04 20:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Buldath
CCP Larrikin wrote:

A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land).



*snip* Be nice* Snip* ~ISD Buldath
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#179 - 2016-07-04 20:43:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Khan Wrenth wrote:

I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchor-able that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sluggish speed trap that forces you to slow-boat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilometres in a given direction.
.

Alternatively, it messes with your warp drive & navigation by creating grav eddies which distort your warp navigation, hence why it can drop you short or pull you long, and the warp eddies have a secondary effect of stopping warp being initiated within a certain range.
Just to you know, create a cohesive mostly consistent logic behind them. So they aren't magically slingshoting you long, your nav computer is just dropping you out of warp in the wrong place.

Of course to truly make that consistent, you would then land in the middle of the bubble, and it wouldn't matter if the bubble was in-line with your travel or not, if you passed within the range threshold you would be dragged to the middle even if it was sideways warp. That would make the bubble behaviour always consistent regardless of circumstance.

For CCP Larrkin, have you considered making each bubble size have a different range at which it works, so a small bubble will only drag/stop at 100km range, while a large will at 500km range? Distances as examples but should be a ratio of the bubble size.
Cade Windstalker
#180 - 2016-07-05 02:46:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
For CCP Larrkin, have you considered making each bubble size have a different range at which it works, so a small bubble will only drag/stop at 100km range, while a large will at 500km range? Distances as examples but should be a ratio of the bubble size.


What's the point in doing this though? The larger are already strictly better in almost every circumstance, so this really just adds inconsistency and opens up the potential for further bubble shenanigans, like setting up a Large out at 500m flanked by Mediums so you land inside the Mediums (since you weren't within their drag distance) at the edge of the Large.