These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nullification and Interdiction

First post First post First post
Author
Crazy Kitten
The Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire
#181 - 2017-02-03 14:22:20 UTC
i quite like the idea of bubbles being unowned - no roles needed to deploy them, just the skill. but also, everyone with the appropriate skill can unanchor them. so, a bubbled gate that's unmanned is free loot for those with the skill.
Foggy Hedgehog
Monkey Attack Squad
Goonswarm Federation
#182 - 2017-02-03 14:26:23 UTC
Farr Arrow wrote:
I DEFINITELY do not like gates being able to be locked down long term without a player presence. I sure hope this type of activity never ever ever becomes part of the Eve universe.

Can you explain, what prevents you from shooting them "without a player presence"? They shall be more expensive, thats all.
Raven Ship
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2017-02-03 14:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Raven Ship
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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


No, combat ships mainly involved in interaction with bubbles of any kind, would be those used for player vs player interaction, and those players choose what they are after clear, so there is no reason for letting such ones pick on whenever they fill like having odds or no.

Steve Ronuken wrote:

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


Yes, similar to what I wrote above, players who decide to be involved in other activities, than said pvp, shouldnt be enforced to take a part in it.

Steve Ronuken wrote:

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


Anchorable bubbles should exist as they are, those things are expensive to use and are easy to shoot down, also from logistic point of view they are heavy, so fast ships used in daily activities, can't easy handle with them.



But most important to mention here is topic of nullified covert t3 with cyno/covert cynos,
two days ago I been camping pipe system so got fresh data, also were checking zkill of those who passed,
for two hours of sitting on gates, about 15different nullified covert t3 passed, about 90% of whole traffic, and those ships are unstoppable with hic and few other ships,
also most of those t3's used by pvp oriented players, who had few hundred kills for each loss ratio, yet they were hopping to fight with others, had black ops gangs ready (yes had intel about them), but they didnt engage in fight with pvp ships,
and here is main issue with t3's, as those risk averse cowards, who have only balls to drop pvp ships at players who decide there gameplay will look differently, made there main ship out of such nullified covert t3's.


So sumarizing, only nullified covert T3's require to receive huge change's nothing more out of said above.
Volcan Roubartzan
Damage Goods
#184 - 2017-02-03 23:03:51 UTC
I find the mechanics of Bubbles and interdiction nullification totally fine. When you are not manning the bubbles, they hardly cause issues. When someone has a nullified ship you need an instant lock and possibly de-cloaking move but it is far from impossible to do. Perhaps a 24 hour activation time is not a bad idea. Keeping bubbles up for more than 24 hours can cause travel issues that don't necessarily contribute to the game but on the other hand, finding someone else's bubble and shooting it or using it for your own means is something people including myself do on occasion.
Garret Sidzaka
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#185 - 2017-02-04 00:06:36 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
Yes because this is the only counter to a bunch gate campers, and scouts would be useless without this. nullsec would grind even slower with no one able to move


How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Shuttles would be insanely useful if you allowed them the jump fatigue bonus of haulers. blockade runners should be much easier to get because they are only good for noobs. yachts....why not!



Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
These are already almost useless, if you are going to make them decay you might as well remove them because they will become a super pointless anchorable.

thanks for listening
Eternus8lux8lucis
Duckzer Mining Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
#186 - 2017-02-04 00:17:26 UTC
Module yes. BS class with BS fitting reqs for utility high slot. Intense cap usage to limit activation numbers concurrently. Sunesis gets a role or ship bonus for fitting and slight cap reduction.

Module acts as a limited usage interdiction nullification that uses large amounts of cap. Downside to the module is it does NOT stop DIC or HIC bubbles from working as a direct player driven active counter.


Bubbles degrade over time. Shields, then armor and then structure goes pop after anywhere between 6-12 hours for smallest to largest. Can be manually repped if one so wishes to increase time on station.


Nullification of yachts and other ships are fine minus inties.

Only one of the inties should have nullification. Im undecided on which though the point range class or the dps one though I am leaning more to the point range inty should have the nullification.

T3s have been nerfed a lot in the last few years and people still scream about them but the drawbacks are enough to keep these nullified. A slight tweak to the align time for the nullified/cloaky sub combo might work best here but isnt a huge deal imo.

Another thing to look at is to make DIC/HIC pilots great again by changing what ships can counter direct or indirect bubbles. Aka players atk or afk gameplay.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Jack Reaper Jones
Frostfire Flux Industries
#187 - 2017-02-04 02:13:45 UTC
How about you make cloaks have a manual cycle every hour instead of working about permabubbled gates?? BTW make the bubbles have to be reset every 3 hours. wam bam. interdiction nullification is balanced imo. waste of time.
naed21
Iron Knights
#188 - 2017-02-04 03:44:46 UTC
I know it's extremely niche and I'm one of only two individuals that use one, but I've had my gas havesting tengu for over 5 years and the nullifier subsystem has allowed me to escape countless ganks and camps within wh space.

With that said, huge ehp, warp stabs and nullification is just plain unfair. It will be a said day but I do look forward to retiring this un-catchable isk printing machine that apparently never caught on. (Depsite my best efforts to push it on my corp mates, aka the other individual who has also never been caught).

For a bit of context, I like to have slave implants, but getting podded sucks. Thus a nullified gas havester is awesome. Although with citadels, this point has become moot.
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#189 - 2017-02-04 05:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
I do not feel any type of LONG TERM AFK game play should be allowed. Anything you have active (ship) (module) (item) in the game should at least require your input once every couple of hours. This should apply to every aspect of the game including bubbles or mining or ratting or hauling or cloaky camping...everything


I am all for nullification. This allows me the feeling of sticking it to the man when I can go deep into his space and operate by exploring or scouting or setting safe spots off gates or setting siphon units or disrupting ratting or running his anomalies or scanning down his anomaly and waiting for him cloaked or getting his cyno .......possibilities are endless.

If your worried about large nullified groups then make nullification disabled in a fleet.

Removing nullification would take away a part of the game that grants me personally the greatest satisfaction. Removing it would only make it harder on the little guy to have an impact since one bubble ends your trip.

Well I am certain I have stirred the pot enough for the moment.

Thanks for requesting the input and allowing the little guy a voice Big smile
Carefire Nalaar
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#190 - 2017-02-04 07:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Carefire Nalaar
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

This appears to be something extremely hard to balance from reading the comments and thinking about on my own.

1) I like interceptors as they are. I hear a lot of people complaining about them and how annoying they are. I have been on the receiving end of interceptor gangs. While it is annoying seeing a killmail so easily slip through my fingers, I believe removing the nullification from them would make them pretty ****.

They wouldn't be 'Intercepting' anything better than a T1 frigate would without that nullification. Here's a complete stretch and please disregard because I might have a mental disability... But if you take away their nullification you need to add something else to make them slippery that can be countered still. Perhaps add 2 points of warp stability and make them immune to non-heavy webs(aka the webs on BCs/BSs). This would make them slippery but still catch-able if you really put your mind to it.

2) Modules for every ship could be interesting but I imagine it would be really hard to balance so its not either **** or OP.

3) I wouldn't mind seeing reworked ships or new classes of ships specifically balanced with nullification in mind.

4) I'm currently a poor so I don't fly TC3s but they seem to be good at everything. Is this good or bad? I don't have an opinion right now, but everyone else does.

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

1) Tech 2 shuttles with nullification could definitely be a thing in my book.

2) I think the transports should have their roles reworked and nullification fit onto one of them. People complain that they would be ALMOST uncatchable, but is that really a big problem? A JF is ALMOST uncatchable too if you aren't an idiot about it.

I think having faster and safer means for an individual or a small group to get supplies into/around nullsec would be a great thing. There have been multiple times when I wish I could have safely transported a moderate amount of stuff into Null without waiting for a JF pilot.

Luckily I do have access to one, but what about those who may not? This doesn't really take much away from the current way things are done. If anything this creates more content. People will still be idiots and get caught. People who used to use JF services might take the risk and create a nice loot pinata for a gate camp. There have been times where I won't fly for a night or two because I can't get the modules I want for a particular ship that I like to fly.

Perchance, maybe I or a small group just want to set out on my/their own somewhere? It is nearly impossible to do since I don't have a JF at my personal disposal. Before you complain about "Wheres the danger and risk?" please stop. People are generally moving stuff with the intention of get it blown up. If they can't get it out there safely to ultimately get it blown up, more than likely they aren't even going to try at all. Letting the stuff get to the destination before it blows up tends to lead to content that is more fun. I know EVE is all about stomping on people's fun before they can even have it, but I think that just discourages engaging content for everyone.

3) I don't really have an opinion on yachts. I should probably utilize them, but I don't.

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

They should exist, but should decay and create killmails 100%



EDIT: Some people have mentioned how Blockade Runners aren't really Blockade Runners... Funny story, I started training towards Transport Ships on my alt because I thought at least one of them would be nullified because of the name Blockade Runner. This is clearly my own fault for not actually looking at them, but honestly they should just be renamed if they aren't going to get nullification. Switching the names and making the DST stealthy and the Blockade Runner nullified as suggested makes a lot more sense.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#191 - 2017-02-04 09:10:08 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

It wasn't long ago. So what changed during this time? Because T3C are not the only hull doctrines to fly in null AFAIK.


CCP killed offgrid boosting. The impossible to catch part is still there.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Sure they are, but you must spend few hundred millions to do so, and I assume we are tanking about Tengu here? I don't think you will fly that blinged ship in fleets...and if you can't catch pve ship in ded site with combat recon you just bad.


Price is no barrier, never has been. No its not just the tengu and yes they are impossible to catch when they are traveling around.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

There must be counter to indirect warp disrupting and nullifier subsystem is that counter.
There is, how do you think the other cov ops ships get around?


Jeremiah Saken wrote:

You may nerf dps and tank ability even more but nullsec bears will still be crying that they can't catch everything. Null shouldn't be safe for people living there and 100% predictable.


its 100% predictable anything that has a cov ops cloak and nullification is going to be impossible to catch.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#192 - 2017-02-04 09:14:03 UTC
Foggy Hedgehog wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Foggy Hedgehog wrote:
It will be great, if shuttles and blockade runners will be nullified too


Do not give blocade runner nullification. They already warp as fast as intercepters, align out like a frigate and can warp cloaked. Adding nullification to them as well will make them impossible to catch.

Not truth, even not close to insta-warp ceptors align time.
Anyway, it will be easier to catch such transport rather than almost uncatchable interceptors.
They will be catched by big gatecamps with ships orbiting gate @12 (thus preventing them from cloaking) easily, if will not use a scout.
Moreover, with agility rigs and inertstabs, their cargohold is not too big.


Nobody will catch these things, they have a sub 3 second align time while moving.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#193 - 2017-02-04 10:38:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
There must be counter to indirect warp disrupting and nullifier subsystem is that counter.
There is, how do you think the other cov ops ships get around?

No, direct counter to bubbles are nullified subsystems. Covops cloaks are counter to instalocking hulls. It's not the same, and having covop cloak only within bubble and under the good gatecamp gave you low chance of passing through. Been there, done that. Null shouldn't be safe of trespassers. ISK is just stupid there.

baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Sure they are, but you must spend few hundred millions to do so, and I assume we are tanking about Tengu here? I don't think you will fly that blinged ship in fleets...and if you can't catch pve ship in ded site with combat recon you just bad.
Price is no barrier, never has been. No its not just the tengu and yes they are impossible to catch when they are traveling around.

Aye you won't balance hull via the price (which is skewed today by overfarmed faction BS), but with modules? It's obvious you'll drop civilian and officers modules from equation, and oversized mods. Rest is coming with the price if I'm willing to pay it I gain the advantage, and that advantage is decressed within huge fleets. You'll just get primared and your few billions T3C will pop in beautifull ball of fire.
Problem with devs is that they don't know what the role hull have between classes for example destroyers-cruisers. Good example are T3D. What role have that ships? Better than any frigates and very good compared to cruisers. Same is with T3C.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Corvald Tyrska
Valknetra
#194 - 2017-02-04 11:07:41 UTC
Bubbles should exist but there should be a decay and gate rats should treat them as hostile and shoot them.
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2017-02-04 14:23:39 UTC
Bubbles.....

I feel the bubbles are just fine as they are. they are many options within the game to get around them or to hot drop some corp hiding behind the wall of bubbles.

remember that Covert Cyno hot drop. and i Seen the T3 cloaky nullified fitted to do just that.

all i know from the stories running about is that PL is a little butt hurt having to face the wall of bubbles 3 times. and from the looks of it the defense was set up. Now if there is a limit of the number of bubbles I do not remember seeing that specificly NAMED within the ToS or the EULA. Was there ever a number laid down for this? If there was a number of bubbles to be permitted on grid then why was it not included as a special note for the description or coded in for the bubbles?

I do like the idea of giving them a life span of 48 hours or 92 hours once anchored. This would improve the value of the bubbles on the market.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#196 - 2017-02-04 17:20:19 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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)


My thoughts on the matter:

Having some nullified combat ships isn't bad, but instead of nullified interceptors I think it would be more interesting to give this ability to cov-ops, recons, black ops and of course T3s. All those ships are meant to be stealthy and some of them are good at combat.

Likewise, some non-combat ships, like blockade runners, should get it, but not all of them. Shuttles are so cheap it doesn't make sense except for super-special non-cheap shuttles.

Anchorable bubbles are a good thing, I'd just like two changes:

-Make all of them larger, so more people will use the small ones
-Let them decay after two days, like a mobile depot

Otherwise, bubbles are good.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#197 - 2017-02-04 17:34:19 UTC
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:
Bubbles.....

I feel the bubbles are just fine as they are. they are many options within the game to get around them or to hot drop some corp hiding behind the wall of bubbles.

remember that Covert Cyno hot drop. and i Seen the T3 cloaky nullified fitted to do just that.

all i know from the stories running about is that PL is a little butt hurt having to face the wall of bubbles 3 times. and from the looks of it the defense was set up. Now if there is a limit of the number of bubbles I do not remember seeing that specificly NAMED within the ToS or the EULA. Was there ever a number laid down for this? If there was a number of bubbles to be permitted on grid then why was it not included as a special note for the description or coded in for the bubbles?

I do like the idea of giving them a life span of 48 hours or 92 hours once anchored. This would improve the value of the bubbles on the market.



There isn't a specific number. This is covered by the clause of "don't do stuff to deliberately cause lag".

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Predator Ace
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#198 - 2017-02-04 19:12:14 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
-Yes, you should have combat nullified ships, to have a chance to make solo-pvp at null-sec. Cuz, if there will not be nulllified combat ships (like crow, any other interceptors, or t3`s). Alliance who live in null-sec will totally dominate there, wich is not good.

How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
-Yes you should have a nullified non-combat ships, cuz you will be able to do some stuff solo in null-sec.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
-Yes, they should exist ! Cuz there is only one good way to do some good defens on home system gates (in null-sec).
______________________________________
So, in general, nullified combat and non-combat ships should exist(nullified t`3s and other), cuz if they will not exist, solo-pvp will absolutly die in null-sec, and big alliances will dominate in null sec, cuz solo players cant actually do anything in null without nullified ships.
TheDoctorUK
BSC LEGION
Tactical Narcotics Team
#199 - 2017-02-04 19:22:40 UTC
Here what I would like to see.


  • Make them Generate Killmails. when killed.
  • allow corp unanchor with or without roles, (if corp anchored it needs roles, but if player anchored anyone in corp can unachor..
  • Scalable lifespan on bubbles, 36h on small, 72 on medium and 104 on large (tech 2 get an extra 33% time bonus)
  • Allow them to be stolen, 3 rounds of hacking with data analyser and 10 min unanchor, or 5-15 min entosis) corp then alerted via notification with location.

Zane Chakaid
Praxis 0f Evil
#200 - 2017-02-04 20:35:27 UTC
I don't know if the mechanics should be changed or how, but I would like to see the current dynamic between knowledge and work with survivability preserved. For example, if you take the time to set up and use gate tacs and unaligned safes, you'll dramatically increase your ability to move around safely. Warping gate to gate, on the other hand, increases your chances of landing yourself in a bad situation. Thus, it seems to me that knowledge, work, and patience increases survivability, while ignorance, laziness, and impatience decreases it. No matter how these mechanics are changed, I would like to see that principle preserved as much as possible.