These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Nullification and Interdiction

First post First post First post
Zazad Antollare
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#121 - 2017-02-01 21:07:38 UTC
Anchorable bubbles
They are fine right now, can be a bit anoying that they can stay in space for days. Could be solved with them being unchored after a few hours, letting the user anchor it again or someone else scoop it.

nullified combat ships

T3 cruisers are fine with it, they are expensive and unique. They enjoy perfect safety because they use both covert ops cloak and nullified, if any change should come to them it would be in a T3 cruiser rebalance/re-work.

Interceptors is a double edge sword. When Fcing i love that i can use them as scouts. But they can also be used to harass with no consequence.
For me one easy solution could be split the interceptors in 2 classes. One class for combat and one for tackle/scout. The first one would lose nullification and get small buffs in other areas and the second one would keep nulification and the e-war bonus and get some other bonus (maybe probe launcher fitting reduction?) but lose the ability to use guns/neuts.

Just removing nullification will only help people to be safer and removing tools from people that hunt. This way you can tackle someone but you can't kill it. This will let people call for help and make the agressor use ships that can't just get away at any sign of trouble.

nullified non-combat ships

Yachts are ok. They are expensive(compared to interceptors), cant carry much cargo.

Blockade runners, i dont think they should get nullification. That is giving perfect safety to "large" amounts of cargo movement.

I imagine shuttles would replace the void of taxi ceptors if they lost nullification. On one hand they will die really quickly to smartbombs, on the other hand they are cheap and easy to get into. I don't really know how i feel about them

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2017-02-01 21:14:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
I'm fine with the nullification ecosystem, there needs to be only some tweaks to anchorable bubbles, namely:

1. make them generate a killmail
2. 10x their cost
3. lower their HP


EDIT: I read a lot about splitting the ceptor roles and removing nullification from one. You need to see, that ceptors are used because of their nullification. No nullification no point using a (combat) ceptor, there are cheaper and/or better suited ships for that role.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2017-02-01 21:21:02 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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

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?

Nothing in EVE should be lock downable without a player presence.

Not every ship should be 100% catchable. Please dont kill interdictors or nulified TIII's.

Everything is in a state of decay, bubbles should not be exemp from this sad fact about our universe.

keep up the good works o7

Tarsis Inc
#124 - 2017-02-01 21:22:46 UTC
Zazad Antollare wrote:

Blockade runners, i dont think they should get nullification. That is giving perfect safety to "large" amounts of cargo movement.

We already have perfect safety for large amounts of cargo movement: jump freighters.

Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
#125 - 2017-02-01 21:24:44 UTC
Q. Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
A. No. Nullification results in less fights. Less fights equals less fun.

Q. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
A. Fine with these. Blockade runners need a buff.

Q. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
A. You should have to show up with a dictor or hic. Bubbles also give me eye cancer.
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#126 - 2017-02-01 21:26:03 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

lol does test have trouble keeping its ratters safe from the little guy with a cyno?

LOL we dont have space for ratters (or at least enough to matter right now).

I just pointed out what I considered a broken mechanic. Also if you read the post other than just my alliance tag, you would notice I mentioned that I as well have cloaky camped ratters in their stations.

T3Cs are the only ships with covert cyno AND interdiction meaning they eliminate half the options of killing them.

Covert Cyno on others ships can still be intercepted by bubbles, so they can be killed by a bubble behind a gate and decloaked.

T3Cs can only be killed via bad game/server ticks or a good/lucky uncloak on a gate camp.

Let me put it to you another way. A recon ship can be caught on both sides of the gate via bubbles and die. On the IN gate, you need to bubble the ship and then get a decloak. You have time to decloak the ship due to the bubble. It is hard but not that bad considering a t3c.

You cannot kill a t3c on the side of the gate you are jumping FROM (out gate) because of a bubble. He laughs and jumps through regardless. You can kill him on the other side BUT it can only be done via an uncloak because a bubble does not stop him. This means you have at most 5 seconds to:

See him uncloak
Burn toward him
decloak him
notice he has been uncloaked
lock him
scram/disrupt him

Much harder to do period.

NOTE: I left out the possibilities of an instalocker because both ships are affected, but if you need to rely on someone living in England for your gatecamp, that is another issue by itself.

TLDR: T3C are much harder to catch then other ships that can have a covert cyno.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#127 - 2017-02-01 21:28:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tipa Riot wrote:
I'm fine with the nullification ecosystem, there needs to be only some tweaks to anchorable bubbles, namely:

1. make them generate a killmail

This for me.

The owner of an anchroed bubble gains a killmail if someone in the bubble tries to warp while being killed, even if the person that anchored the bubble isn't online. Why not a lossmail when you lose one?

MTUs generate lossmails for their owner. If the same was to happen with bubbles, players wouldn't be anchoring them and then just leaving them. There would be a lot more unanchoring happening.
Seraph IX Basarab
#128 - 2017-02-01 21:57:59 UTC
I think it's an extremely useful tool for allowing content to be developed. Sending in a quick scout to get tackle on something pushes people into conflict. Really the only people I can see complain about ceptors are krabs who want to AFKtar and talent-less gate campers salty over not being able to just F1 on ceptors.

I wouldn't even mind making it an AoE module to be used with fuel (one ceptor can get their fleet through bubbles once or something) and making specific bubbles that could counter it. Adding more variation, not less, to the game is good. Is it perfect as it is now? No. Can we do more and develop it further? Certainly.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#129 - 2017-02-01 21:59:27 UTC
STEVE I'm sure you remember one year ago on CSM X we sat in CCP's offices and asked for bubbles to have shorter lifespans (1 to 2 days) AND to generate killmails a la modern structures.

These things are out of control. They pollute gates and get lost in random w-space pockets, never to be scanned down or cleared (no incentive). There is no way they were ever intended to be used in the dozens/hundreds on gates, lasting weeks and weeks, or cluttering up w-space dscan for just as long.

Give them a way to expire faster or give people a reason to MAKE them expire!!!


You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

mister dudeguy
Brave Collective
#130 - 2017-02-01 22:33:03 UTC  |  Edited by: mister dudeguy
Making anchored bubbles drop killmails would be a good thing.

Some sort of Universal Nullification module would be, I think, Too powerful. Restricting Universal Nullification to T3 and dedicated transports/haulers Is healthy.

How about Faction Nullification?

Interdiction drop bubbles of their races type.
Nullifiers go through bubbles of their type and multi spectrum bubbles. The current anchored bubbles are multi-spectrum.

Caldari Navy gravimetric Warp field Nullifier

Warp speed -10%

This module looks for the gravimetric signature of interdiction bubbles along the warp field and adapts the ships warpfield to nullify the interdiction.

Caldari Navy Mobile Warp Disruptor

This structure projects a blue warp disruption field.

Faction fields could consume fuel and be larger and have more tank then T2 bubbles.
Pirate fields could be bypassable by 2 different types and have odd effects. Perhaps phenomena generators? Most fights happen inside of a bubble, and it would be interesting if a WH style effect was possible under the titan class. This also could make asymmetric fights possible where One side is in the bubble and under some effect and another side is outside the bubble.

Also I want to drop actual Blue balls on the field...
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2017-02-01 22:44:28 UTC  |  Edited by: JahBaba
Anchored Bubbles Should have a timer or fuel, There are so many Ratting Pockets with 100 Large Bubbles around the Gates its just cancer. Nullsec isn't Highsec, but with Citadels it feels alot like it. Before Citas you could send your Interceptors to the Anoms and your Interdictor to the Station and if your lucky you could catch them. Its safer than never befor to make alot of money in your Ratting Pockets.

Lets say 60 Minute timer, which is plenty for Gatecamps and 5 Minutes before the Timer ends you get a Timer Animation.

T3 Nullifed I dont think Nullified T3 Cruisers are broken. If your Nullified you already nerf your DPS.
Roman De'Sol
Goonswarm Federation
#132 - 2017-02-01 22:45:42 UTC
Funny you should bring this up right now.. I've been looking for a way to screw with someone's camping Mobile Depot in null and was thinking of putting up a few Mobile Warp disrupters around it so I can camp it properly and stop the guy zooming in and just picking it up after I reinforce it.. 48hours timer on them is bloody ridiculous..

If you're going to change it, give them the same 30 days timer as a Mobil Depot.. Training the skills for mobile disrupters takes a long time, a lower timer just makes it an evil long train for no benefit..

And ships, leave them as they are.. There's other ways to kill them from smartbombing to insta-lockers..
Space Captain Austrene
Industry and Exploring Federation
#133 - 2017-02-02 00:11:43 UTC
Chasing interceptor fleets is the least fun thing in eve because there is no win scenario. If they have the advantage they kill someone. If they don't they run away and are impossible to catch. Every other fleet in eve has a way to counter AND KILL it. This is the important part. Can you **** interceptors **** off? yeah. If they stay on grid with caracals they're gonna eat ****.

Can you actually catch them though and pin them into a deadend system or catch them coming up a pipe? No. The most you can do is chase them around and make them warp off over and over.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#134 - 2017-02-02 00:15:27 UTC
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

Removed post and those quoting for the above.

Also executed CSM privilege and stickyed this thread.

ISD Max Trix


Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#135 - 2017-02-02 00:40:30 UTC
My suggestion, make the interdiction nullifier a module that can only be fit on specific ships much like the covert ops cloak. Nullification shouldn't be removed completely as it is good to have variety; although it needs to be balanced with drawbacks much like any other module. Interceptors in particular have no drawback to being nullified which they should.
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#136 - 2017-02-02 01:01:09 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.

Yes pretty much this:
Nullification has a point and use for both combat and transit.
I dont think shuttles need nullification inties hard enough to catch.
T3's with subsytems definately - they are already balanced for less damage etc.
There is perhaps a case for interdictors and command destroyers too to encourage small gang pvp.
I wouldnt go with blockade runners (already cloaky) or dst's
Bubbles do need a timer - you see piles of them sitting in wh space been there forever and the bubble camps ppl use in null are OTT - Fair enough 1 or 2 I have seen more than twenty on multiple gates which tbh should be an exploit.
I would put a limit on how close they can be together much like other structures ideally no less than 100km apart or perhaps a max of say 6 on a grid. And they must expire (say 24-48 hours if not scooped) and generate killmails (to encourage their destruction)
These measures along with delaying local in null sec by say 30 secs would allow much more pvp and encourage small gangs again which presently have to mwd thro huge bubble camps a while local tells everyone they are there.
Elinara Yamamoto
Latex Entosis
Insignificant Others
#137 - 2017-02-02 02:59:46 UTC
Been playing in Nullsec for about 4 years now, there are some good ideas in this thread for sure!

Q. Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
A. T3C and Ceptors are the only ones. Short answer to this is: yes! But I am totally for decreasing the DPS on Interceptors so that large Ceptor fleets loose some appeal as a fleet fight tool. T3C also could have an increased penalty, if you use the subsystem you loose half your EHP. That seems all fair to me, Slippery Pete's don't need EHP anyway. Make it all more dangerous, but without taking the Inty away as a safe sightseeing and clonemoving ship. I have only lost 1 Inty to smarties. If the yacht would not exist I would be very very against taking away the Inty as the only safe travel ship for Nullsec!

Q. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
A. Shuttles, no need to make them ignore bubbles, they are cheap and quite safe without instalockers or bubbles present. Take another ship if thats not good enough for you. Don't change Yachts as they need to stay the way they are if Inties ever loose their bubble immunity, I mean we need to have some way of making a safe-ish trip to the Eve gate!

Blockade runners could get a increased cargo maybe, but definitely not bubble immunity. They rely on cloak and agility, bubbles make them have some sort of danger.

DST could be made bubble immune imo, especially if they are to become too slow to do MWD Cloak trick (not sure if currently possible) So they would then have their tank as a defense and could warp if not tackled fast enough. Maybe we could have even a new type of cargo ship that is bubble immune but only has a good local tank and cyno etc as its defense and leave current DST unchanged?

Q. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
A. Has been said plenty of times. Killmails. I am not against decay, but maybe not needed. I still remember the disappointment as I killed my first solo bubble and expected a killmail. Not instead of killing them I just make bookmarks to go around them.
Ari Kelor
Frontier Explorations Inc.
#138 - 2017-02-02 05:04:05 UTC
Nullification effects are good, I like where it stands right now, although Inty Fleets can be annoying, but in the end they serve a good purpose as they are easily scattered. I would like to see the feasibility of inventing t2 shuttles that are nullified. Another idea from above is to have the nullification be a modual, like a t2 modified warp core stabalizer, similar to the covert ops cloak but the same huge penalties, and ship fitting restrictions.

I haven't really ever seen a good use for the Surgical Warp Disrupt Probe, I know that it has specific situations that they are used in. But as an interdictor pilot I bought a batch of 30 when they first came out and haven't used them all. It would be interesting to modify the use of these to include nullified ships, and finally give them a more focused role. Another option is to have a t2 variant for the same effect. The point is that there needs to at least be one if not multiple options to stop nullified ships, especially if there is discussion about putting more in the game.

Anchorable Bubbles must have a timer on them just like every other deployable that has come out recently, they are a relic of pre-Incarna eve and must be updated to fit the current game. Something akin to the cyno inhibitor with variables between 1 hour to 4 hours based on the tech level and size, likewise the cost of the bubbles need to be reduced to compensate for the new expendable nature. In certain constellations the bubbles are out of control, miners and ratters are completely safe because of scouts and 120 km radius bubble defenses.

This is a good discussion to have and I'm glad it's being taken seriously.
Hol Vegr
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#139 - 2017-02-02 05:20:37 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
If you are talking about the existing nullified ships, yes, there is a clear counter to interdiction nullification. Don't get rid of a feature that exists in a balanced space.

How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Shuttles no, there should not be a simple easy CHEAP way to get around. Fit for the task, shuttles should stay as low-tech tin cans. The tradeoffs are good and I don't see room for nullifying more ships. You have a lot of options for hauling, and there should be some important decisions to make on which of these to use.

Yachts are just lol. They're not cheap like a shuttle, they don't warp fast like a shuttle or interceptor, they can't warp cloaked, they can no longer higgs fit for rolling wormholes, they don't have a significant tank, and they don't present a threat on grid. If somebody really wants to fly a Yacht around through null more power too 'em.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
"prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. "
If there's not a player presence, then anyone can come in and destroy the bubbles. I don't see the problem here.
Siobhan MacLeary
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#140 - 2017-02-02 05:58:33 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

No, except in the case of T3 cruisers fitted with the appropriate subsystem. Nullification should, on other ships, be a choice that negatively affects combat ability. Insta-warping nullified interceptors have removed a massive amount of the tactical function of area warp denial.

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

Ships that exist solely to transport pilots or very small amounts of cargo - and cannot warp cloaked - are a reasonable target for nullification. Shuttles, basically. Yachts and Blockade Runners can warp cloaked, ergo have no need to be nullified since they already have tactics at their disposal to evade warp interdiction.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
Yes, anchorable bubbles should continue to exist, and additional forms of static emplacements - mobile turrets, anyone? - should be introduced. Said static emplacements should be subject to the decay and reinforcement mechanics like modern deployables, EG, if left floating unattended in space for more than 30 days they should unanchor, and when damaged should offline and enter a reinforcement period of reasonable length, perhaps four hours.

Mechanics should also be introduced to limit the number of static emplacements within a given area ongrid, so it becomes mechanically impossible to surround a gate with hundreds of bubbles. A maximum of six bubbles and twenty-four mobile turrets within a given 1k km cuboid is where I would start, with further adjustments made as necessary.

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave