Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

While we are at it, put an anchoring minimum distance of 100km between each bubble from the edge of the bubble, not the center.
That way, not-so-brave need to be vary in their mining system and not have 30570586265 bubbles with 2m distance to each other.

Git gud! If you cannot pvp, don't pvp. If you cannot defend your space, don't own space. If you cannot organize, you should think about your lives and return to highsec.

They're fixing this in a way that makes perfect sense, especially since it also standardizes another mechanic.

The issue, and the only issue, is the interaction between bubbles and Citadels. That least either adjusting Citadels or adjusting bubbles, and adjusting bubbles impacts fewer things overall and makes perfect sense.

Also it's ridiculous to claim that these mechanics have been part of Null "forever". They've changed bubbles in small ways like this a couple of times, and these ranges have only been present since the grid size was changed. For the majority of Eve history the range was actually shorter than the new 500km range, and way shorter than the 1000km we have now.

Really this whole post feels like unjustified salt.

Please leave the insults at home, thanks.

Yes, the interaction between bubbles and Citadels is a problem, though only really around gates. They could have changed the anchoring range on Citadels, but that would probably impact other things, create problems if Citadels get moved into each other, and generally make more of a mess than is warranted.

You seem to have an issue with CCP changing bubbles to fix this issue, but that makes no sense. It's not breaking anything else, as you yourself point out there's no real advantage to a bubble 1000km off grid vs one 500km off grid, except that one can sit on a Citadel. This is simply the easiest change to make to solve the issue at hand, and as an added bonus it creates more consistency with bubble mechanics, which is nice. So why the hate?

--disregard--

"You do realize the problem was seen as the drag bubbles that pull you out of warp and land you in range of a Citadel's weapons."

*Yes, You do realize this isn't necessarily a problem, unless You se it as a problem.
According to your response you se it as a issue.
Your not ready to live & fly around a "Citadel Camp"?

Open Your Mind, They may have seen this scenarios they might not expect so much salty tears of a new feature.
CCP might think, "oh well they want empty space & Mindless jumping? Sure they are our blood & lifeforce..."

***My point is: keep content, How lazy are humans srsly, Scout so you don't get stuck!

What do we do when we find problems?
Do we work harder to overcome?
Do we adapt to the situation?
Do we run blindly in to a bubble, then cry that its unfair.
Do we make "example" of how other ppl do things wrong?

Are your way the only right way?
If you say "Yes" your a blight to the world.
If you say "No" we can start discussing how to make this better.
Its like sort all over, not paying attention & running without listening to his FCs.


I vote +1 to "Make space interesting & full of dangers, not empty"

I didn't insult anyone -If you do see an insult there, your seeing something that is only in your imagination. Or a really bad interpretation of the English language.

As I said - This change is only valid for one thing, it would have been far easier to just remove Citadels from gates.
I can tell you what the next nerf will be - Carriers unable to sit near a Citadel with fighters deployed on a bubble 500K from a gate.

Because our Devs have no insight as to how people play the game, they are always going to be n the back foot - Fixing errors in their judgement of what players will do and how they will react.

NB; Any bubble 1000K "off grid" is going to do nothing - They must be ON GRID to be effective.

I don't have an issue with what devs are doing, I just don't see it as a complete fix. It is simple bandaid.

Improbable to harm != impossible to harm

It's not that you're effectively invulnerable to people entering the camp, it's that you're literally invulnerable even if the thing entering the camp is Cyno-bait with the entire combined Super fleets of Eve on the other end of the phone line. If I drop a big fleet on your bubble camp at the very least I can eat your Fighters, even if you kill my bait ship, and come out more or less ahead of the game. I've also removed you from the bubble camp, either because you warped off or because I blew you up.

None of that works with a Citadel.

Invulnerability is not just "Degrees and semantics". If someone has mitigated their risk to the point that they're hard to kill then that's one thing. They're not actually invulnerable, and they're very vulnerable to being out-played. For example I could scan down your carrier, have a bubble up at his probable safe spot, nail him down and kill him with support. He's not invulnerable.

Citadels offer no such counterplay outside of a brief window each week. The Citadel is literally at no risk and in no danger, all other ways of manning a bubble camp are, at best, in theory at very little risk and all are vulnerable to counter play.



You were absolutely being insulting. You called the majority of forum users "narrow minded" and heavily implied that you were referring to me explicitly, and you also implied that you think I'm stupid with your first sentence, which was instantly dismissive of my entire previous response.

Nope, removing Citadels from gates means they have to figure out where to put them or how to reimburse them, gets into a lot of potential ways things could break, and is generally a much messier solution. Even just moving them off grid gets into questions of where to put them, since there are restrictions on how close Citadels can be to other Citadels.

The devs are, by definition and simple math, always going to be running behind the players playing catchup, becuase there are thousands of players trying to break the game and only a few hundred devs maintaining it. This is a fundamental truth in Eve or any other game, MMO or otherwise. You'll probably see the general sentiment passed around more frequently in Computer Security circles though, it doesn't mean the devs are bad or incompetent, it's just simple logic.

As for the issue of Carriers on a Citadel. That Carrier has to be vulnerable in order to threaten anyone, it has to give itself a weapons timer, and at the very least if nothing else its Fighters can be killed to the tune of tens of millions of ISK. That's a *far* better state for the game to be in than literally invulnerable Citadel camps.

It also works anywhere within those 500km ;-)

Anchor a small bubble, anchor a larger one inside the first; and behold: targets will land at the edge of the small bubble [wicked grin]

PROFIT!



This is a good thing imho. Light ships often don't even land in the bubble and warp straight off unless you have an svinstapul handy.

Stating an opinion - A majority of those using these forums are narrow minded (me included, as my opinion is focused on my agenda) is not an insult to anyone, unless of course you think for some reason your special and a broad based comment was directed at you personally ( I assure you - It wasn't). I would be far more insulted if someone were to say I flip flop on my stance, therefore can have no valid opinion.

1; Where to put them? Anywhere that is not on a gate grid. Grids have a minimum size, can't anchor within X, really wouldn't be hard to do. As long as citadels remain invulnerable while using offensive weapons, they are risk free and should not be allowed to be used to "protect space".
Alternately, Devs could make Citadels vulnerable like everything else in Eve - You attack something you get a suspect, weapons or criminal timer. You want to put a Citadel on a gate and use it to kill things, that Citadel should be vulnerable to attack.
If Citadels can't be attacked when they are actively attacking - They should not be allowed to activate any offensive weapons.

Reimburse them? For what exactly?
Restrictions on placement? I don't know of any systems on TQ that are so small they would limit where one wants to place a structure - I know of at least one lowsec system that has 3 Medium Citadels, all within 2K of the same gate.

2; What does Computer security have to do with Devs not considering how players may use mechanics?
They wouldn't need to do as much "catchup" (nerfing, balancing, etc) if new additions to the game were tested properly and player ingenuity taken into consideration. Many Devs profess to actually play the game but seem to have little to no understanding of how the game is played (outside PL and NC. of course)

3; The carrier is all but invulnerable if it is engaging 500K from a bubble while sitting on a Citadel undock.. One minute is all it takes to get complete safety.
As for losing fighters being an example of "vulnerability" and "far better than..." - Your joking right?
Hauler lands in bubble, fighters kill hauler - No risk.
Small gang lands in bubble, carrier pilot assesses to much risk - Fighters don't engage but retreat to safe distance - Calculated risk
Something lands in bubble that may be able to kill 100 mil worth of fighters while getting killed - Small risk, still isk positive on killboard.

Something lands in bubble and begins to burn the 500K to the carrier - Pilot de-agresses and 60 seconds later becomes invulnerable.
-- - -- - -- - --
Bottom line of course is, the changes to bubble mechanics only affects a minority of the overall player base. So doesn't really deserve this much attention. Where as the same broken way in which Citadels can be used in lowsec has far wider implications for many more players, that Devs aren't interested in. You don't need bubbles to use Citadels to kill while remaining invulnerable to attack.

Citadel mechanics need an overhaul, not just a bandaid fix for nulsec - If it makes an offensive attack, it should become vulnerable to attack.