These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change

First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#101 - 2016-07-01 20:44:20 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like.

Alright, I see it as a fair point.
Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes.
Discuss!

EDIT.
I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels?


This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7.

Simply removing the ability for Citadels to camp Stargates with bubbles fixes the major issue with Citadel guns, and avoids all of these issues.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#102 - 2016-07-01 20:58:06 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:

Alright, I see it as a fair point.
Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes.
Discuss!

EDIT.
I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels?


Why not just make it so that citadels can't be anchored on grid with gates? Fix citadels, not bubbles which have worked fine for years
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2016-07-01 21:04:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels?

This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7.

Absolutely not.
If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS).
If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment.

Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Why not just make it so that citadels can't be anchored on grid with gates? Fix citadels, not bubbles which have worked fine for years

Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about.
But why do you want them to be removed from gates?
Melanoq
No Clams
#104 - 2016-07-01 21:13:09 UTC
I support this change wholeheartedly
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#105 - 2016-07-01 21:39:57 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about.
But why do you want them to be removed from gates?


Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels.

Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#106 - 2016-07-01 21:48:37 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about.
But why do you want them to be removed from gates?


Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels.

Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate?



Cloaky dictor?

/devilsadvocate
Nadarob Skillane
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#107 - 2016-07-01 21:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Nadarob Skillane
Im sorry, but this idea is total bullshit.
You had a feature in game. People adapted and used that feature, and now you are going to break it because some people whined like 12 year old girls about it.

Bubble wall citadels are probably the easiest type of camp to bypass. ONE ping negates the entire thing and the citadel cannot counter it,
Also, there are relatively few systems in which this type of citadel actually works.
The system has to be arranged in such a way that the citadel bubbles can catch every celestial at a single wall.
Even in those systems where it DOES work, it generally only works on one of the gates.

Before people start bitching at me:
Yes. I DO have a citadel set up like that.
Yes, I AM the guy that set up the one that Asher bitched about in Reddit.


If you are in nullsec on a roam and you dont have a ceptor burning ahead of you to get pings when needed, then you are doing it totally wrong.
A single ceptor burning a ping totally negates the effect of a Citadel bubble wall in about the 30 seconds it takes to make a ping.

I have an Idea.
If this is changed, I will drop a Fortizar instead.
I will then Hell bubble the gate
I will have my main and 3 alts sitting in Carriers at the fortizar and blap every non-nullified ship coming through the gate from 1000km away.
Feel free to warp to the Fortizar to try and kill me. I will be perma-running the point defense Battery to blap small ships Thanny/archons with the right fit can still blap frigates in a few cycles - not a single volley, but they will still die.

Good luck avoiding THAT rather than a bubble wall...
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2016-07-01 21:56:46 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about.
But why do you want them to be removed from gates?


Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels.

Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate?

Dude, can you even read?
If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable.
That's what I have suggested.
Nadarob Skillane
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#109 - 2016-07-01 22:02:38 UTC

Dude, can you even read?
If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable.
That's what I have suggested.[/quote]

So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ?

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2016-07-01 22:06:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Like this:
Skia Aumer wrote:
if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes.

I had to repeat myself literally 3 times over one page. I feel so dirty. Is this place a reddit?
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#111 - 2016-07-01 22:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
Skia Aumer wrote:
Dude, can you even read?
If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable.
That's what I have suggested.


No, Get citadels off gate grids. Gates are a great place for small gang fights, making a citadel on a gate vulnerable means exactly nothing to a small gang. What do you think, small gang roams have 7 day siege plans for citadels when roaming?

The answer is to get citadels off gates.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Cloaky dictor?

/devilsadvocate


A ship when cloaked can't do anything, so no big deal.

Killing a dictor when it decloaks is easy for a small gang, killing a citadel? with a half dozen cruisers? hmmm...
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#112 - 2016-07-01 22:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Nadarob Skillane wrote:

Skia Aumer wrote:

Dude, can you even read?
If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable.
That's what I have suggested.


So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ?




If nobody is there to man the guns the citadel poses no threat to you, it's just another drag bubble you should have avoided by burning yourself a ping or warping to a celestial in the first place while traveling through null.

But you tell me, why should you be able to make an unmanned, invulnerable citadel vulnerable? What would be the purpose of the invulnerability at all if you can force such a thing?

I see no problem with a citadel being used offensively outside of it's vulnerability timer becoming temporarily vulnerable. I'd honestly give it the same 1 minute weapons timer any player gets, the same one used to prevent tethering.



As far as the bubble changes go it's just simply a bad idea. And the idea of adding timers or allowing hostile entities to scoop someone else's bubbles are even worse. Literally ideas out of the mouths of those too lazy to realize they are in null and should know the proper ways to travel through hostile space does not include simply warping gate to gate.

And for you solo roamers. I have one thing to say to you. Get good. Travel the paths you wish to travel ahead of time in a ceptor if you must. It's always good to familiarize yourself with the lay of the land and set up pings where needed ahead of time. You'll find you'll catch more people off-guard if you appear in their system faster because you had previously set up a ping to bypass their drag bubbles. Or knew ahead of time to come in a nullified cyno ship to bypass their complete bubblefucking of a gate with friends on standby to jump in (that being outside of solo-roam category but you get what I'm saying I hope) .

Moral of that story is if you want your kills, do your due diligence and come prepared to hostile space! If you want to do off the cuff roams, don't complain when you get caught and killed by the locals and demand changes to support such a lazy playstyle.




EDIT- fixed the messed up quote I quoted.
Cade Windstalker
#113 - 2016-07-01 23:11:12 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Absolutely not.
If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS).
If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment.


I know they don't auto-aggress, if they did I would say this was just a flat terrible idea and you may as well remove the vulnerability timers entirely. Instead you're creating a situation where you have to strictly manage who can and can't gun your Citadels because they're now, effectively, giant gank bait that can't dock up.

I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.

Skia Aumer wrote:
Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about.
But why do you want them to be removed from gates?


I don't, I never said anything of the sort, I think they serve a very useful purpose on gates, but I'm not really sure being a one-man camp is particularly useful or beneficial to the game.

I'm all for them being support on Gates, and being able to assist in engagements on them if used properly, but the current one-man-gank-squad does seem to have gotten a bit out of hand.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#114 - 2016-07-01 23:19:07 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.


I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam *cough*
Cade Windstalker
#115 - 2016-07-01 23:39:26 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk.


I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam *cough*


This sort of thing should make some amount of sense and encourage good gameplay though, this is just letting someone who doesn't know what they're doing screw their entire alliance with a role that, otherwise, had good reasons to be available to a large number of people, because the Citadel is worthless as a defense platform without it.
Ki Yaung
Endemic Horde
#116 - 2016-07-01 23:58:57 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,

The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel.

With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km.

This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you.

What do you think? We'd love your feedback!


You know the risk averse way, way outnumber the survivors of nullsec hell. I have a better idea for CCP:


  • Make a video demonstrating what scouting is
  • Demonstrate what it looks like to get caught in a citadel bubble trap
  • Every time someone whines about bubbles, refer them to the video above


Then those of us that understand risk, accept it, and counter it by playing smarter can carry on with our merry carebear-averse lives.

If bubbles were a "thing" in high-sec, I'd say go for it in high-sec. But you're talking about something almost solely in nullsec where it should be spooky to even jump from gate to gate.

I get it, though, a very sensitive group of people is having a rough go of it getting through certain space. They happen to be the loudest squeaky wheel. But this shouldn't be up for a vote.

Leave it alone.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#117 - 2016-07-02 00:10:21 UTC
For warp termination, can you fix the double bubble trick by checking for bubbles within 550 km (or so) but only apply the closest termination under 500km

It makes me wince to see you boast about a bug as if it is a feature.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#118 - 2016-07-02 00:44:42 UTC
Quote:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

I have removed a rant.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2016-07-02 01:15:02 UTC
Band-aid fixes everyday!

Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!

Kikaali Kurvora
A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum
#120 - 2016-07-02 01:30:49 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,

The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel.

With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km.

This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you.

What do you think? We'd love your feedback!


How is it unclear?
It is 1000km (well, more than likely it is 999 km, or somewhere in between those 2 figures, depending on rounding)
Saying it is 'unclear' and coming up with a 500km hard cap is obfuscating the fact that you have decided to nerf citadels with bubbles pulling people out of warp.

At least be honest and state your intention rather than using sophistry to give a 'reason' for a change

If I win an auction for your Character, please send me a mail in case I have forgotten to select the 'receive notifications' option.