These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nullification and Interdiction

First post First post First post
Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#261 - 2017-03-04 11:01:46 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years.

If T3C will be nerfed to the level of others cruisers then covops with nullification will be the only reason to fly them. Why would anybody choose to fly them if they will dps as HaCs or scan as Stratios? The whole "swiss army knife hull" is a lie because rigs determine the role here. Tengu rigged for combat doesn't align as fast as explo one, rigged for agility. Anyway the sooner the better, any change that bring more hulls to the fleets are welcome unless it won't destroy some nonfleet gameplay.

I predict that covops and nullification will be separeted. There are few changes to mobile warp disruption and HICs bubbles. Something bigger incoming.


Cats out of the bag, T3C rebalance this summer 😈
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#262 - 2017-03-04 11:06:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years.

If T3C will be nerfed to the level of others cruisers then covops with nullification will be the only reason to fly them. Why would anybody choose to fly them if they will dps as HaCs or scan as Stratios? The whole "swiss army knife hull" is a lie because rigs determine the role here. Tengu rigged for combat doesn't align as fast as explo one, rigged for agility. Anyway the sooner the better, any change that bring more hulls to the fleets are welcome unless it won't destroy some nonfleet gameplay.

I predict that covops and nullification will be separeted. There are few changes to mobile warp disruption and HICs bubbles. Something bigger incoming.


Cats out of the bag, T3C rebalance this summer 😈


U wish :) or if u mean that's they gonna give the Tengu power back then yeah im up to
Perkutor Jakuard
Los violentos de Kenny
#263 - 2017-03-04 13:07:15 UTC
I'm with T2 haulers being nullified, logistics in null sec are quite difficult for small groups, you need a jump freighter to be in the safe side.

Having T2 haulers nullfied would allow small corps or groups deploying material for squirmish campaigns of pvp or even ninja farming, creatin more and funny content than having haulers killed on a gatecamp.

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#264 - 2017-03-08 07:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I think bubbles should have a warp disruption factor. Even with a value of 1 they will still be highly effective at catching combat fleets. The only people able to escape would have to have prepared for it beforehand, and you can tackle them with target interdiction, though you might not catch them all.

I'm thinking tech-1 anchorable bubbles should have a disruption factor of just 1, while tech-2 could come in two varieties: one which increases radius and the other which has a reduced radius but a disrupt factor of 2. Meanwhile interdictor and heavy interdictor bubbles would be stronger, like 3 or 4.

Capital ships could automatically receive a multiplied effect from a warp disrupt bubble, or maybe we're at the point where we no longer need to rely on bubbles to hold down capitals. Maybe there could be special bubbles for locking down capital ships. In any case, capital ship balance can be discussed separately.



Perkutor Jakuard wrote:
I'm with T2 haulers being nullified, logistics in null sec are quite difficult for small groups, you need a jump freighter to be in the safe side.

Having T2 haulers nullfied would allow small corps or groups deploying material for squirmish campaigns of pvp or even ninja farming, creatin more and funny content than having haulers killed on a gatecamp.

I don't know the answer but I agree that short-range logistics in nullsec needs a buff, hopefully so far that we can nerf long-range logistics and let short-range logistics take up the slack.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#265 - 2017-03-08 15:51:28 UTC
Naye Nathaniel wrote:
Damn this thread is so funny;

Almost all Pandemic, Goons and all other related to them guys (gangers etc) are AGAINST a timers on anchored bubbles and against nullification of that bubbles;

Others (most of them) not related to that group (not gangers etc) Agree that bubbles should decay and there should be even more few nullification ships;

Im wonder what is the point of Pandemic, Goons and Gangers hmmm - not to mention some guy who were speaking about "align time" cause he can't instalock and pop a small agile ship anymore :( that is sad;

So two groups:
Gangers who LIVES and ENJOY the game when they can shoot targets sitting at gates in blobs in high/null/low sec shooting stuff which can't run away beeing insta popped;

And 2nd group which is sick about being popped when they trying to enjoy the game and stand no chance cause of the mechanic which been many times changed to a favor of the 1st group :)


DAMN BRING ME MOAR POPCORN! :)


WTB pics of PL/Goons/"gangers" shooting plebes on bubbles in hi or losec.

There are many "gangers" that think insta-warp nullified interceptors are pure AIDS and should never have been implemented, and/or anchorable bubbles should have decay timers. And from the sisi threads, it seems decay timers are going to happen.

Personally, I've lived in nulsec for 8 years. I'm used to them. They are more of an annoyance than anything else. Its the manned ships like interdictors and HICs that get fleets or caps killed.

As for BRs, I don't think they should be nullified. They align and warp as fast as interceptors. They also have a covert cloak, which means they can light covert cynos, and refuel a blops. Do they really need to be nullified? I assure you I will abuse the crap out of them.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#266 - 2017-03-08 21:10:17 UTC
Soldarius wrote:


WTB pics of PL/Goons/"gangers" shooting plebes on bubbles in hi or losec.

There are many "gangers" that think insta-warp nullified interceptors are pure AIDS and should never have been implemented, and/or anchorable bubbles should have decay timers. And from the sisi threads, it seems decay timers are going to happen.

Personally, I've lived in nulsec for 8 years. I'm used to them. They are more of an annoyance than anything else. Its the manned ships like interdictors and HICs that get fleets or caps killed.

As for BRs, I don't think they should be nullified. They align and warp as fast as interceptors. They also have a covert cloak, which means they can light covert cynos, and refuel a blops. Do they really need to be nullified? I assure you I will abuse the crap out of them.


They would become next to impossible to catch and very much abused like you say.
Perkutor Jakuard
Los violentos de Kenny
#267 - 2017-03-14 13:52:54 UTC
Maybe nullifing all of them is not the solution, anyway I still think that low scale logistic in nullsec should be enhaced.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#268 - 2017-03-19 16:21:32 UTC
Petit Julot wrote:
CSM shouldn't weignt on the metagame, period.

Please do whatever very important other thing you may have to do or just have a drink


We're asking this to see if there is support to remove it from ships.

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
The Bastion
#269 - 2017-03-19 17:16:06 UTC
Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points.

- having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat.
- nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable.
-nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors.

Want more feedback

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#270 - 2017-03-19 18:07:47 UTC
I agree we could use nullified shuttles, but maybe make them tech 2 shuttles that cost a bit. This shouldn't be available to alpha accounts and it shouldn't be something that new players rely on. Any new player trying to shuttle through nullsec for the first time should learn on first encasement within a bubble that that means you can't warp. If new players had access to a nullified ship, they might pass through several bubbles thinking they are a decoration, then lose their battleship in one later when they find out it's actually a tool. Also shuttles are very well seeded throughout New Eden, and access to nullified ships should not be that readily available and distributed.


I'd keep strategic cruiser nullification subsystem. The real problem I have with them is that they are as powerful as battlecruisers while being as swift as cruisers. If they had tech 1 non-navy cruiser strength, their versatility and large number of skill bonuses would make them more than viable and they would still see common use. Currently they are generally fit in very specific overpowered combat layouts and some subsystems don't get used. Fix strategic cruisers? Yes, it should be at the top of the list! Remove nullification? It won't need to happen once they get fixed. They are currently used as force projection to bypass bubbles. Make them less of a combat ship and more of an exploration ship, and it'll probably become more popular to use stealth bombers and force recons than strategic cruisers--those bypass bubbles pretty well already and I don't see people complaining a whole lot.


I would definitely remove nullification from interceptors. I imagine the purpose behind it was for an interceptor to run ahead of the fleet and tackle someone in the escaping fleet, bypassing any bubbles on the way that could slow them down. But that's just it, if the bubbles are operated by a third party, it'll slow down the escaping fleet as well. If the bubbles are placed by the escaping fleet to delay the interceptor, that's fair gameplay. Also, interceptors dive out of bubbles very quickly. I used to fly an interceptor around nullsec before they were nullified, I didn't need that. It was more expensive than a T1 frigate but more likely to survive, so it was good if I had implants.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2017-03-20 12:54:45 UTC
Sullen Decimus wrote:
Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points.

- having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat.
- nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable.
-nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors.

Want more feedback

What is the problem you want to solve here, and to whom is it a problem? Ceptors which run and don't engage also don't fight per definition, ceptors which fight are catchable.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Roamer Jakuard
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2017-03-20 14:38:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Roamer Jakuard
Realitively new player speaking again.

I personally like using an interceptors as an explorer interceptor. It is a thing. Losing nullification would really make that far less viable. Especially when it needs a greater skill investment, compared to covert ops, to work well in the first place. It's great having an alternative to covert ops. Take away that alternative, and I'm likely to become a cloaky AFK camper (which is itself complained about in another thread).

Besides which, adding to the previous poster, if an interceptor that runs doesn't encourage any sort of engagement, a nullified shuttle certainly doesn't.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm a nullsec warfare expert or anything. I just see interceptors as dogs of war, squeezing through defences and harassing by nipping at heals. They help provide threat in otherwise secure space (if used as such in the first place). Are they really main contenders and not just dogs? Honest question.

I would rather see nullification gain something like jump fatigue when passing through bubbles. That would at least not destroy some of my own gameplay by losing nullification.
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2017-03-24 22:48:20 UTC
Sullen Decimus wrote:
Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points.

- having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat.
- nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable.
-nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors.

Want more feedback


I would like to see nullified blockade runner, it will give them a stronger use then going afk cloaked till all the bad guys log off.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#274 - 2017-03-25 10:37:46 UTC
Maria Dragoon wrote:


I would like to see nullified blockade runner, it will give them a stronger use then going afk cloaked till all the bad guys log off.


Do not do this.

They warp cloaked, align like a frigate and warp as fast as interceptors. If you nullify them too then these haulers will be impossible to catch.

T3 cruisers don't need to lose nullification, they just need to lose the ability to have both nullification and a cov ops cloak and again, its effectively uncatchable.

I would leave interceptors as they are but them losing nullification would not be the end of the world, we managed before without it.
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#275 - 2017-03-25 17:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
baltec1 wrote:
T3 cruisers don't need to lose nullification, they just need to lose the ability to have both nullification and a cov ops cloak and again, its effectively uncatchable.

I agree with this.

Perhaps if the nullification navigation subsystem reduced the ship's agility (kind of like a reverse higgs anchor), and the covert ops electronic subsystem added a bunch of mass (for all that computer space), it would cause the combination of the two to make the ship align dangerously slow, enabling gankers to decloak it and point it before it gets away.

A good balance would make this reasonably possible but still difficult. Technically it's possible to decloak a stealth bomber caught in a bubble--my own was lost once by a very skilled interceptor pilot who may have also gotten very lucky--but when I say reasonably possible, I mean a feat that can be replicated over and over again successfully by a skilled pilot. But it shouldn't be as easy as decloaking a battleship, for instance.

This change would also nerf the two subsystems when used individually. They could grant the ship battlecruiser attributes to make up for the reduced agility. Other subsystems might do similarly, since some are giving battlecruiser offenses they might as well give battlecruiser size and agility. And the tech 2 resists can be replaced with battlecruiser hit points. Perhaps each subsystem would add hit points, some adding a fifth of a battlecruiser's hit points and some adding a fifth of a cruiser's hit points. If you build the thing with all battlecruiser subsystems, it'll have battlecruiser sig radius, align, bump radius, velocity, scan resolution, and mass to go along with its battlecruiser targeting range, hit points, powergrid, slots, hardpoints, and CPU as well as a higher material price for those subsystems (or simply reduce the price for the now cruiser subsystems).

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#276 - 2017-03-25 19:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS.

This nullified cloaky ability makes a huge difference to smaller entities who use this to move their stuff in and out, removing it will remove an unique ship type that takes time to train and enables different play styles. Of course thos people who want to lockdown space and get easy kills at gate camps will love removing the nullified cloaky T3C.

The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it.

When I first started playing there was so many gate camps in 0.0 with bubbles it was silly, the thought of seeing that level of lame play again sets my teeth on edge.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#277 - 2017-03-25 20:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Dracvlad wrote:
When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS.

How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines?



Dracvlad wrote:
The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it.

That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes.

Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics.


But don't take my word for it. Baltec1 says strategic cruisers should take major nerfs. He's a member of Pandemic Legion, who is known for flying around in big fleets of strategic cruisers, dominating everyone. Pandemic Legion isn't afraid of ship nerfs. If every ship was balanced, Pandemic Legion would still maintain their stranglehold on other nullsec groups because they're excellent pilots with tons of resources. These balance changes we nullbloc folks suggest aren't selfish moves; we genuinely wish to improve the general balance of the game. But you can be assured that unbalances are best taken advantage of by powerful nullsec alliances.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#278 - 2017-03-25 22:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS.

How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines?



Dracvlad wrote:
The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it.

That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes.

Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics.


But don't take my word for it. Baltec1 says strategic cruisers should take major nerfs. He's a member of Pandemic Legion, who is known for flying around in big fleets of strategic cruisers, dominating everyone. Pandemic Legion isn't afraid of ship nerfs. If every ship was balanced, Pandemic Legion would still maintain their stranglehold on other nullsec groups because they're excellent pilots with tons of resources. These balance changes we nullbloc folks suggest aren't selfish moves; we genuinely wish to improve the general balance of the game. But you can be assured that unbalances are best taken advantage of by powerful nullsec alliances.


Big alliances tend to move T3C fleets without bothering to use cloaks and nullifiers, hell I moved in a T3C fleet to fight PL the other day and it did not have any of those sub systems. I repeat the point, logistics is key to what small groups use T3C's for, either to move small stuff through or scout for a BR. Remove this ability and all we will see is gate camps everywhere.

What exactly changed specifically to help small corps or solo players? It is easy to say there was but not so easy to give details. Yes sov is one, but that is small alliance more than anything else.

Why would I take baltec1's word for anything? This is not about PL it is about removing a ship fit choice that enables small groups to do logistics. Hell what would be left setting up Astrahus's on every damn route in, yeah sure small groups will be able to do that...

Thankfully I am not in a small group any more, but if I was I would be looking at CCP and the CSM with acute angst over this.

This is a change that is not needed, they T3C's are fine as they are. The major alliances want this change to be able to strangle everyone else out, if CCP does this then I have to wonder.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#279 - 2017-03-26 02:57:40 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS.

How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines?



Dracvlad wrote:
The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it.

That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes.

Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics.


But don't take my word for it. Baltec1 says strategic cruisers should take major nerfs. He's a member of Pandemic Legion, who is known for flying around in big fleets of strategic cruisers, dominating everyone. Pandemic Legion isn't afraid of ship nerfs. If every ship was balanced, Pandemic Legion would still maintain their stranglehold on other nullsec groups because they're excellent pilots with tons of resources. These balance changes we nullbloc folks suggest aren't selfish moves; we genuinely wish to improve the general balance of the game. But you can be assured that unbalances are best taken advantage of by powerful nullsec alliances.


Big alliances tend to move T3C fleets without bothering to use cloaks and nullifiers, hell I moved in a T3C fleet to fight PL the other day and it did not have any of those sub systems. I repeat the point, logistics is key to what small groups use T3C's for, either to move small stuff through or scout for a BR. Remove this ability and all we will see is gate camps everywhere.

What exactly changed specifically to help small corps or solo players? It is easy to say there was but not so easy to give details. Yes sov is one, but that is small alliance more than anything else.

Why would I take baltec1's word for anything? This is not about PL it is about removing a ship fit choice that enables small groups to do logistics. Hell what would be left setting up Astrahus's on every damn route in, yeah sure small groups will be able to do that...

Thankfully I am not in a small group any more, but if I was I would be looking at CCP and the CSM with acute angst over this.

This is a change that is not needed, they T3C's are fine as they are. The major alliances want this change to be able to strangle everyone else out, if CCP does this then I have to wonder.


It's incredibly overpowered and used by everyone because it's next to impossible to stop a nullified cloaky t3c. That's why we used to use them as fleet boosters. It's why we still use them for running 10/10, level 4s and one of the big reasons we use them rather than pilgrims. They should never have been allowed to have both cov ops cloaks and nullification at the same time. Both are very powerful on their own.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#280 - 2017-03-26 03:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines?


What stops them is the fact that refitting takes time, and then if you want to go to another system you either have to refit back (and refit yet again once you move), or take your chances jumping through a gate without your cloak + bubble immunity. So if a fleet of nullified T3s jumps into your system you have at least a minute or two to react before they can engage you. IOW, all of their targets have plenty of time to dock up, and if you want to AFK cloak to counter that then they're forced to refit back to the weaker travel fit.

The better use for refitting in space is PvE T3 cruisers, since you can use the travel fit to get to your farming site, swap to combat fit to do your farming, and swap back for the trip home or if anything appears in local. And that primarily benefits solo/small group PvE players who don't have the power to claim a PvE system openly and carebear in battleships/carriers/etc.