These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Removing Higgs and prop mod interaction
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#21 - 2015-10-08 15:21:11 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
You could remove the nullification from T3 to give you a chance at catching them too...


Decoupling the ability to warp cloaked and the ability to be interdiction nullified would really improve the game. No ship should be able to do both those things.



Cloaky nullified T3 have a couple of roles (wether or not they are liked by me, you or anyone else doesn't matter at this point). The only one I currently favor is the cloaky nullified over tanked cyno toting bait T3 - but htis isn't about me.

The issue at hand is oversized prop mods on higgs cruisers (which is what enables the cloaky/nullified option for trolling... er I mean rolling). The OP is asking to have an interlock to prevent installing a higgs rig and then fitting an oversized prop mod. He's looking for a small effect change to fix a niche practice.

I would love to see the message:

"Warning! Activating this device within the influence of your Higgs Field will destroy your Higgs Field generator. Do you wish to continue with this dangerous act?"

If the pilot opts to turn on his oversized prop the higgs rig gets destroyed (prior to jumping the wh). That way a player can choose to fit out a cloaky/nullified/stabbed/higgs proteus with oversized prop mod, but if he also chooses to turn that oversized prop mod on the the higgs rig goes poof.

I think this tweek would move wh rolling balance toward a better place.


Is this about removing some form of "coward play" ? If yes, why not remove more "coward play" at the same time?

Your idea also involve creating new code as far as I remember because there is no rig destruction modifier on any module currently existing.



Remove rig gives you a warning that removing a rig will destroy it and a do you want to continue yes/no button option. I'm no sysadmin, but maybe just copy that YES button code that destroys a removed rig and paste is to the YES button on the "do you wish to continue...." question I posted above. Again no sysadmin but I think you just need some code to check if you have a higgs rig when you try to activate your oversized AB on a cruiser to bring up the warning question box. The rest would be walking a path that is already travelled.

It's not about coward play. There have been changes and tweeks to how rolling a wh works over the last couple of years. For better or worse the basis (maybe not the result in all cases, but the driving force that initiated the change) - the basis is that rolling a wh should involve risk to the rolling ships.

CCP got it wrong when they got duped into the mass/range thing and tried to band aid it with introducing the higgs rig. Now we have higgs cruisers with oversized AB. Historically (see the saga of the OP ishtar) CCP doesn't go backwards to when things were right and just - they add and tweek to justify their bad. In this case 'waaaa hole roling is too safe' added mass/range to jumping a wh which pretty much killed capital rolling for all but a few large entities. BS became the new c5/c6 rolling ships. It took too long so 'waaaa it takes to long' was what was heard. In comes the higgs rig. Now we have 'waaaa cloaky nullified oversized AB cruisers' - which is where we are right now.

I didn't agree with the first 2 'waaaa this' that got us into this mess, but in the spirit of rolling a wh should have risk I'm totally behind this one. Some emergent game play (however cool and creative) goes against design goals (rolling a wh shall involve risk) and need a change. Of all the hoo haw tweeks in this subsection, this one is going straight for changing a mechanic that is against current game goals.

It's not about a subjective thing like 'coward play' it's about a game concept that rolling a wh should involve risk.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#22 - 2015-10-08 15:27:26 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Can't bait, goes to the forums to complain about a well known/established strategy. Aight.

Do you honestly think that stripping people of that option would lead to more fights?



No it won't lead to more fights, but it will slide the risk bar towards where it should be when rolling a wh.

More fights - no.

More wonking up on guys rolling away from fights - yes.
Previous page12