These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
123Next pageLast page
 

Nullification and Interdiction

First post First post First post
Author
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1 - 2017-02-01 14:34:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Afternoon folks,

I'm looking to spark some discussion on a topic, to gauge player reactions across a wide variety of play styles.

There's been some discussion within the CSM on whether nullification on combat ships is a good or bad thing.

This included talking about anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence.

So, if you can post on those topics here, (or by mail, or on the reddit thread I'll be creating from this, if you think that the eve forums are less than good for such discussions) I'd appreciate it.

I've heard some strong feelings on all the sides of the argument, but they tend to be from a fairly limited subset of people, rather than a broader consensus.

Some topics:

Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?


Thanks Big smile

(If you dont have a specific thought to add to the matter, throwing a like onto a post which expresses what you think is a good idea. Just to keep things from getting cluttered with 'me too' posts)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2017-02-01 14:40:11 UTC
Interdiction should be manned IMO. Anchored bubble are fine if you keep a presence around them. I don't know how it should be made to work in game but but the bubble should deactivate when nobody "guard" it. The only bubbles that should remain active when there is no one around are the interdictor ones since they are temporary anyway.
Anthar Thebess
#3 - 2017-02-01 14:44:42 UTC
Why this discussion start now, before CSM campaign, and not like few months earlier?
What happened in last week, that so many CSM people started to ask questions about obvious things that annoy players?
Prometheus Hinken
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2017-02-01 14:44:48 UTC
I'm all for having anchorable bubbles decay over time, based on their size and tech.
Poision Kevin
Burning Napalm
Northern Coalition.
#5 - 2017-02-01 14:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Poision Kevin
+1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less.

10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space.

T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks.

Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess.

Yachts Definetly yes.

Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze.
Coelomate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2017-02-01 14:46:37 UTC
I think the bubble/nullification ecosystem works very well as it is, to be honest.

Boring feedback I guess? Anchorable bubbles expiring eventually would be fine, but they can already be shot, so whatever. Nullified ships have plenty of drawbacks to keep things balanced. Nullified scouting + non-nullified combat/hauling is generally optimal nowadays, which IMO is a right and a good and a joyous thing.

Love,

~Coelomate

Admiral Sarah Solette
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2017-02-01 14:50:04 UTC
I don't see too much of an issue either way. I think anchored bubbles provide a sort of soft defense for areas of space, which is a good thing IMO since they can also be avoided/blown up.

I hate nullification when I'm trying to camp a gate, but I love it when I'm traveling or scouting, so again I think it works out fine. Even if I do with T3s didn't have the option of being cloaky AND nullified, but again I think they're honestly fine as is.
Tora Bushido
eve corporation 987654321-pop
The Marmite Collective
#8 - 2017-02-01 14:51:09 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

Yes, as long as they dont have the same defense/offense capabilities as the ones without one. If you get more security, you should get less of the rest to keep it balanced.

How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

Yes. This way more people from "safe" highsec will take a look in to the other parts of space and notice it might not be as bad as they though it was. Ships without offense should be able to have more defense.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?

Yes. The more variables in a game, the harder things become to predict..... aka more fun. A timer.... absolutely!

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Triumvirate.
#9 - 2017-02-01 14:52:47 UTC
Poision Kevin wrote:
+1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less.

10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space.

T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks.

Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess.

Yachts Definetly yes.

Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze.


I´m just copying what he^ said.

Timer on bubbles should be at least a couple of hours though.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#10 - 2017-02-01 14:53:55 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Why this discussion start now, before CSM campaign, and not like few months earlier?
What happened in last week, that so many CSM people started to ask questions about obvious things that annoy players?



'obvious' isn't always as obvious as you might think. Which is why I'm kicking this up for discussion. In internal discussions, there's been more disagreement than expected on both sides.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#11 - 2017-02-01 14:54:02 UTC
Nullification on T3Cs is currently OP.

Unanchoring of bubbles should be allowable by any in-corp. Currently to anchor on behalf of corp requires special roles. Make it simpler for unanchoring to occur, after a camp is done and can be packed up.

A skill or module to unanchor unfriendly bubbles should be introduced. This would enable many more game play scenarios and encourage "manned" bubbling.



Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#12 - 2017-02-01 14:54:15 UTC
Poision Kevin wrote:
+1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less.

10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space.

T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks.

Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess.

Yachts Definetly yes.

Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze.

This pretty much... also all deployables give a killmail/lossmail. Make bubbles do the same. People will spam them less willy nilly if they get lossmails for them.
Yarosara Ruil
Haighare Pirates
#13 - 2017-02-01 14:57:58 UTC
It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever.

Because bubbles have no counter other than get around them with clever warping tactics or get stuck inside them with whatever else is inside the bubble (usually other ships that want to explode you).
Kythren
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#14 - 2017-02-01 14:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kythren
Maybe start by gate rats shooting anchored bubbles. As others have noted you could add a timer that requires players do to maintenance on anchored bubbles. For example every 6 hours bubbles power down and need to be onlined again. Maybe require a small amount of t2/3 PI materials to run.

This would allow players to secure a PVE operation they plan to do on that day whilst also removing the bubble menace that nullsec entities currently employ. Also enforce the maximum of ~10-15 bubbles on a gate more vigorously, players who get petitioned for this should receive a penalty after the first offence. This should never be tolerated.

I do not like the idea of adding more nullified ships, t3 cruisers and interceptors are sufficient for their purpose.
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
#15 - 2017-02-01 15:00:20 UTC
Thanks for asking! I mostly fly small/tiny gangs and a bit of solo, here's my view of things.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

As a very niche thing, yes. But it should come at a high price. Why not make it a module maybe even with side effects like lower resis or so. Of course this module could only be fitted on a tiny selection of ships. (T3Cs have this idea "kind of" implemented already by using different subsystems with less slots/tank).
I didn't really think this idea through, sorry. But I'd like to have a choice if or if not I want my ceptor nullified... with both options having their pros and cons.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?

The biggest problem I have with non-combat nullified ships are nullified insta-warp ships. Unless you smartbomb travel ceptors there's no way to catch them unless they screw up badly. And if you bring smartbomb ships for that purpose you won't be doing anything else than wait for such ships... I just don't think of that as "interesting content".

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?

Imo they should definitely exist, yes. Setting up a drag-bubble in a pipe while solo can be fun, beeing required to bring a dictor for that is very limiting.
I also like the idea that you can use bubbles to protect a mining op or whatever. Giving them a decay time would be a great change though so that whoever is completely bubbling a system need to put some effort in it. As it is now, you can just bubble up a remote pocket/system and unless someone really puts in a lot of effort to bring the bubbles down you'll be quite safe "forever".
Lucia Denniard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#16 - 2017-02-01 15:01:08 UTC
I feel that interdiction nullification should only exist for "travel" uses, allowing you to get past anchored bubbles, but not past interdictors, it always felt a bit cheap to write off the entire category of player manned interdictors, relying on instalocking interceptors.

You could maybe give heavy interdictors a special scripted bubble that's smaller and stops nullified ships, but then we're getting into pretty gimmicky territory.

One aspect of this which I feel important is interceptors and anchored bubbles. For wormhole groups a large section of our content is from getting connections to remote nullsec areas and catching miners/ratters using interceptors to get past the large (100km+ diameter) bubble setups on gates. Removing nullification entirely would harm this gameplay, and even if you made bubbles take fuel or give killmails, I'd feel better if it actually forced interdictors to sit on gates and have a real presence.

T3 cruisers should probably lose nullification if we get a big T3C balance pass, I'd be happy with them all getting a grav (warp speed) subsystem there in place of it, or a mode system similar to T3 destroyers.
Van Doe
#17 - 2017-02-01 15:03:36 UTC
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever.

Because bubbles have no counter other than get around them with clever warping tactics or get stuck inside them with whatever else is inside the bubble (usually other ships that want to explode you).

Eve is not the game to be stupid.
Eve is about being clever.
So use clever tactics or die

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.

Zelden Aurilen
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST
Triumvirate.
#18 - 2017-02-01 15:04:10 UTC
Anchorable Bubbles.


Anchorable bubbles are good for keeping nullsec dangerous. I don't think bubbles should decay BUT I think they should have a minimum anchor distance to other bubbles. (For example 100km)

This allows continued disruption in the form of drag bubbles and single bubbles on gates but removes the absolute cancer of 50 T2 Large bubbles stacked on a single gate.


Nullified Combat Ships

One of the best parts of nullsec pvp is that you can force some fleets to fight. Nullified combat ships are up there with oversized prop-mods in the anti-fun department. I do understand the benefit of nullified ships for small groups - hit and run disruption tactics provides options for david vs goliath, however the ability for larger groups to utilise this on a greater scale leads to horrible abominations like slippery petes.

Honestly removing nullified combat ships from the game would be a fantastic improvement.

Nullified non-combat ships

Nullified non-combat ships are a bit of a debate. On the one hand a large number of groups and older players have great access to jump freighters meaning that the need to send hundreds of industrial ships through long nullsec routes is a long way in the past. On the other hand the continued lack of options for newer players adds to the daunting side of nullsec.

I don't think that nullified non-combat ships is a bad thing. There are still ways to catch such ships (smartbomb camps, insta-lockers etc) and they provide a valuable service in allowing lower-skilled players to move cargo through dangerous space.
I think a module that allows nullification would be a good idea, with the caveat that it increases align time. Fitting restrictions could prevent it be fitted to unsuitable ships. This could even allow for T1 industrials to have access to nullification if CCP saw fit.

I think that nullification should not be a ship bonus and instead a restricted module as that allows easier tinkering for balance and always means there's a drawback to fitting one.
Anthar Thebess
#19 - 2017-02-01 15:06:42 UTC
Ok then.

Anchorable bubbles are ok.
I hate them, but this is one way people protect their space, or do other crazy stuff.
Only thing that need to change is KM generation, if we get KM from the anchorable bubbles we will get people who kill them.

Interdiction nullification.
Interceptors are just bad, they killed a lot of creative gameplay not introducing any thing positive. To cheap ship for this bonus, and sov mechanic.
Nullified T3 yes, they are expensive and could be unique ships.
Yachts, they are special edition ships and only because of this - yes.
Blockade runners - no, they fly in cloack and hide cargo.
Shuttles - no.
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
#20 - 2017-02-01 15:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mornak
Kythren wrote:
Maybe start by gate rats shooting anchored bubbles. As others have noted you could add a timer that requires players do to maintenance on anchored bubbles. For example every 6 hours bubbles power down and need to be onlined again. Maybe require a small amount of t2/3 PI materials to run.

This would allow players to secure a PVE operation they plan to do on that day whilst also removing the bubble menace that nullsec entities currently employ. Also enforce the maximum of ~10-15 bubbles on a gate more vigorously, players who get petitioned for this should receive a penalty after the first offence. This should never be tolerated.

I do not like the idea of adding more nullified ships, t3 cruisers and interceptors are sufficient for their purpose.


+1, I really like this idea! Imho a much better approach than a flat "decay time"
123Next pageLast page