These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#321 - 2017-03-27 05:21:15 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Most of the community is all about raw power, because they are all about warfare. But solo and small groups who run PVE in dangerous space LOVE Swiss Army Knife ships, if they know what's good for them.

I'd link my Swiss Army Myrmidon lossmail, but I can't find it.

That's exactly why swiss army knife won't be used again. Raw power. No point of using T3 when other cruisers will be better at given tasks.

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2017-03-27 05:46:00 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
No point of using T3 when other cruisers will be better at given tasks.

There is when you're logistically strangled and you can bring one ship that can be refitted for fifteen different roles.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#323 - 2017-03-27 05:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim, good stuff I know all that but it is good to post it for others. One of the thing I did was just go to an out of the way unused system in a T3C, that was before mobile depots by the way, so was not re-fitting, had to use two to get enough DPS for belt ratting, that is how gimped they are.

Anyway they add something different to the game which certain large alliances do not like, I did not say your alliance is one of them,

It was possible even back then for strategic cruisers to refit inside enemy borders, provided you found a good spot. In your case you didn't have the best spot. And I'm having trouble understanding how you didn't have enough DPS for belt ratting, as you should have been able to get more DPS than a destroyer. With a proper combat subsystem and without weapon upgrades, you should have had over 400 DPS. Provided you were hitting the right kind of rats, you should have been easily able to break the battleship rats' tank. If your skills were too weak, then you might have been better served flying a cheaper ship in a less dangerous place.


My alliance is probably the first to dislike any change that hurts big nullsec alliances. We'll cope, but we'll grumble about it. Goonswarm will laugh, and Pandemic Legion will plot to take advantage of it.

I assure you that Baltec1 is not trying to support changes to improve his own killboard stats. With stats like these, maybe he is suggesting this for his own benefit, as in it's a change that will make PVP less easy and thus more fun.


You do know that you could not refit sub systems from a POS at that point? Sometimes people surprise me. Well to kill a BS in a belt you need at least 225 DPS, the Legion was especially bad when fit for covert and nullification, nothing to do with skills. Again saying use a cheaper ship, I would not have been able to get to those locations in a cheaper ship, which was the point.

This change does not hurt big nullsec alliances in any meaningful way, in fact it is a benefit to them due to making it more difficult for people to get hot droppers in. But the negative for solo and small groups is all around the logistics, big alliances and the one I am in now don't care, because they have citadels which they can jump their JF's to and they are totally safe, I would like to see a solo or small group create a network of Astrahus like Test has.

And that is the issue, solo players were heavily impacted by the nerf to carrier range and JF range even though it was a benefit in other ways, many adjusted and used BR's and DST's with T3C scouts going via WH space, however the issue was getting to the WH in the first place, sometimes one could not find a WH, to be blunt it is not so much the BR that I have an issue with but the DST.

The option for this would be black ops bridges for the BR to get around pipe campers, which needs at least three accounts...

When I refer to baltec1 and his easy kill requirement it is based around his love of AFK cloaky camping as the only way to get around local as he puts it, he seems to think that intel channels make it impossible to get kills with local, stranegely I see lots of kills happening even with local and I don't see a reason for AFK cloaky camping. I would hope that you would agree that it is possible to get on people with interceptors if people are inattentive, the thing is that he wants it so attentive people can get caught, which is why I said that. I would suggest taht you don't reply top that part as it would derail this discussion.

And another thing, when baltec1 says that they cannot be caught, well they can, you need a lot of people around the gate or you have people jump with them, that does work, as I said he wants certainty rather than a hard kill.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#324 - 2017-03-27 07:13:23 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
No point of using T3 when other cruisers will be better at given tasks.
There is when you're logistically strangled and you can bring one ship that can be refitted for fifteen different roles.

and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C, it's good in theory but unhandy on field. If you fit T3C for combat (rig it) it won't be as good as natural Ewar cruiser when you switch to Ewar. T3C cruisers have the mobility with proper subsystem but whole switching on the field seems very niche gameplay. I never see small gangs full of T3C with different roles. They usually working like brick tank fastlocking tacklers. The element of suprise is in what role T3C is fitted not the "jump jump jump oh **** hot gate, wait guys I'll go refit my tengu while you die in balls of fire..." swiss army knife. I have very small pvp experience but I know what small gangs are flying because they are hunting me.

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2017-03-27 07:59:34 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C,

It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#326 - 2017-03-27 09:00:46 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C,
It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should.

So something like T3D?

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2017-03-27 09:17:38 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should.

So something like T3D?

More like a buff to the fairly useless subsystems it already has, and a HUGE nerf to the overpowered combat capabilities. Tactical Destroyers have nothing but combat settings; their Swiss Army Knife potential is marginally greater than that of a tech 1 destroyer and only due to their utility high slots.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#328 - 2017-03-27 12:01:42 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C,
It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should.

So something like T3D?


More like removing the rig slots.

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#329 - 2017-03-27 12:45:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
More like removing the rig slots.

It would make sense in terms of multipurpose options of the hulls but 3X rigs slots may give very good bonuses if fitted correctly and that would have to be compensated somewhere else. Well I never try rigless fit. I wonder if that would be compromise to overtanking for example.

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2017-03-27 19:06:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
More like removing the rig slots.

It would be easier to balance them without rigs getting in the way, but I really don't think any rig setups on strategic cruisers will be scary once subsystems are even in the ballpark of the rest of EVE.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#331 - 2017-03-28 06:43:35 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It would be easier to balance them without rigs getting in the way, but I really don't think any rig setups on strategic cruisers will be scary once subsystems are even in the ballpark of the rest of EVE.

For balance I would merge electronics and engineering subsystems into hull. Then reduce defensive and propulsion subsystems to three from four. Offensive subsystems would determine the role of the hull. Remove SP loss. Removable rigs but at a cost (% of hull price maybe).

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#332 - 2017-03-28 09:16:34 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
More like removing the rig slots.

It would make sense in terms of multipurpose options of the hulls but 3X rigs slots may give very good bonuses if fitted correctly and that would have to be compensated somewhere else. Well I never try rigless fit. I wonder if that would be compromise to overtanking for example.


It fixes two issues. The first being you cant make them that adaptable while you have rigs locking them into a role, the second is the rigs are a big part of what makes them overpowered.

One of the other areas that will probably see a big change should be the number of bonuses these ships get. Technically you are getting 12 bonuses on these ships which is a downright nightmare to balance so I'm also expecting subsystems to be radically different. I also expect SP loss to go in the bin too.

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#333 - 2017-04-10 12:15:35 UTC
So they want to move cloak to defensive subsystems (cloak tank) and lowering targeting range for the nullification subsystem. I didn't see any replacement for emergent locus analyzer.
Basically what I proposed.
Still no word about SP loss.

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

Blossom Rivers
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2017-04-11 11:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Blossom Rivers
Nullification in itself is not a 'bad thing', the fact that there is discussion about it so far as combat is concerned is evidence that there are issues around how it is balanced out.

Nullification should come with some drawbacks considering the huge advantage that is gained.

At this year's Fanfest I noted the main reason for nullification by the Devs was mobility. I do not disagree with their view on ensuring mobility for capsuleers especially those in deeper parts of space. What I am concerned with is giving this mobility to powerful PVP ships. Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive.

Nullification for a scout ships is important as no-one is going to engage in a fight when the enemy fleet size is unknown and ceptors fulfil an important function in this regard. However making their align time below what is theoretically possible to catch is a problem. There should be no absolute safety in Eve, a ship should not be impossible to catch, if reasonable effort is made.
A solution would be to limit the ships align time to above 2 seconds, and for pilots to rely more on fitting warp core stabilisers to prevent being caught. The freedom of not being caught should come at a price, and the penalties that come with warp core stabs should prove enough. Additionally if enough fast tackle is present (enough warp core destabilisation strength) the ship can be caught.

What is more of a concern is when nullification is granted to powerful PVP ships such as T3 Cruisers, particularly when nullification is combined with cloaking, which effectively makes a powerful PVP ship that is also impossible to catch. Allowing the pilot complete freedom to engage entirely on his own terms (i.e. low risk for high rewards). This is obviously not balanced, and when a powerful combat ship is undocked, the pilot should accept a certain amount of risk.
A solution would be to make it so that a such a ship can either fit nullification or a cloak but not both. These are 2 of the most powerful abilities a ship can possess in game, and combining them onto a PVP ship is quite an imbalance. They are after all abilities aimed at escaping combat, freedom to warp and then to cloak and prevent being scanned down.
Another solution would be to increase the align time of the ship when fitting both, so that there is a fair chance at decloaking the nullified+cloaked T3 Cruiser. T3 cruisers are very powerful combat ships without nullification and covert cloak, wait and covert cyno, do they really need the extra help? (Are T3's struggling that much? They don't cost that much more than T2 Cruisers when you include their subsystems).

I do believe in the necessity for travel for capsuleers, but if mobility is an issue this should be addressed separate of combat. The issue is capsuleer mobility, not combat mobility, that's what jump bridges are for. A nullified shuttle or nullified+cloaked T3 Transport ship can fulfil this role, since a transport ship of this type would not be involved in combat as an aggressor. I do find it odd that a combat cruiser is capable of being nullified and cloaked, and yet simple means of transport lack the same.
Mobility in Eve can be improved separate of PVP combat ships, and if used together on a single PVP ship should have a counter, it is after all a combat ship, nullification and cloak are aimed at avoiding combat.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#335 - 2017-04-11 12:18:34 UTC
Blossom Rivers wrote:
snip

I think CCP want to adress some of your concerns. Covert subsystem will be moved to defense group (so no more high amount of tank on covert ships) and nullify subsystem will receive targeting range nerf.

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

Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#336 - 2017-04-13 15:05:57 UTC
Blossom Rivers wrote:
tl:dr
As the devs said, nullification should be kept simple to understand and use, no one likes to have rules with exceptions, and exceptions to those exceptions.
So imho it should work like it works today, but with bigger drawbacks. Especially on the align/ warpout time part. It's impossible to target while the target is cloaking and if it warp outs in 3 seconds it's also very hard to get a decloak, lock and scram in that time.
1-2 second penalty on align time would be enough to allow a capable interceptor pilot to do something.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#337 - 2017-04-14 22:13:34 UTC
Blossom Rivers wrote:
Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive.


The only "combat" that is prevented is the lazy bubble campers that cover a 100km radius in bubbles and insta-pop anything that jumps through the gate without a covops cloak and/or bubble immunity. And that's a boring kind of combat that doesn't need to be encouraged. In all interesting forms of combat cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed.
Blossom Rivers
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2017-04-18 09:03:59 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Blossom Rivers wrote:
Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive.


The only "combat" that is prevented is the lazy bubble campers that cover a 100km radius in bubbles and insta-pop anything that jumps through the gate without a covops cloak and/or bubble immunity. And that's a boring kind of combat that doesn't need to be encouraged. In all interesting forms of combat cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed.



With the changes which now generate killmails for bubbles, and hopefully a requirement to refuel/reactivate bubbles or have them decay as suggested previously in this thread, the bubble issue will hopefully no longer pose an issue for much longer. We're heading in the right direction with the bubbles.

Bubbles aside, I am astounded at the comment "cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed". Obviously myself and most other players in Eve seems to be doing it wrong! If you could please upload a video showing how you go about uncloaking and tackling a T3 Cruiser in less than 4 seconds off a gate "normally", please do so. I for one would love to see it, if you don't upload we'll just accept you comment as utter nonsense.

(Also I wouldn't consider a video with 20 Dramiels spread around a gate trying to uncloak the T3C as "normally", since that would be far from normal.)
I'm confident in you, I'm sure you'll be able to manage since its such a normal thing to do :D
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#339 - 2017-04-18 09:30:43 UTC
Blossom Rivers wrote:
With the changes which now generate killmails for bubbles, and hopefully a requirement to refuel/reactivate bubbles or have them decay as suggested previously in this thread, the bubble issue will hopefully no longer pose an issue for much longer. We're heading in the right direction with the bubbles.


This is a very minimal change. Generating killmails changes nothing unless you're one of those sad people that is obsessed with killboard stats, whether or not some out of game site acknowledges that my bubble is destroyed the bubble is still gone. And I'm not going to bother killing one just because some out of game site says "good job, here's your participation trophy for killing a bubble".

Having bubbles decay (which needs to happen on a much faster timer) is similarly meaningless. It's a great thing for cleaning up the abandoned trash that can make 0.0 travel pointlessly annoying, but we're talking about active camps here. It's trivially easy to reset the clock on bubbles if you're actively using them and an active camp is never going to have its bubbles expire.

In short, 99.99999% of the time bubbles are going to work exactly as they have been in this context.

Quote:
Bubbles aside, I am astounded at the comment "cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed". Obviously myself and most other players in Eve seems to be doing it wrong! If you could please upload a video showing how you go about uncloaking and tackling a T3 Cruiser in less than 4 seconds off a gate "normally", please do so. I for one would love to see it, if you don't upload we'll just accept you comment as utter nonsense.


Apparently you didn't read my post, because I said that they can be caught in all interesting forms of combat. A 20-man bubble camp insta-popping every ship that jumps in is not interesting combat, and I'm not going to feel any sympathy for the people who feel entitled to lazy killmail farming when they happen to miss a ship. But in the context of interesting combat cloak/nullifier T3s can be caught just fine. If they're engaging in combat they aren't cloaked, and the nullifier doesn't prevent you from tackling them with a conventional scram. The travel fit helps in getting to your desired fight without getting caught, but it doesn't help you once the fight begins.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#340 - 2017-04-19 00:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Merin Ryskin wrote:
But in the context of interesting combat cloak/nullifier T3s can be caught just fine.


No they can't, thats why everyone used to send bonus T3C through gates before a fleet fight. They were guaranteed to get through no matter how many people are on the gate. If you want to go hunting you should have the exact same level of risk as every other cov ops cruiser.