These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kassimila
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#361 - 2017-06-08 21:02:23 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Kassimila wrote:
[quote=Xair Nuitarius]
You misspelled "Be able to fly around null sec being nearly un-catchable."


Cepters can get smartbombed all too easily.

That said, I'd love for hictor bubbles to stop nullified ships. I agree with you there's very little point in hictors most of the time when a dictor will do the same thing faster and at lower cost. It'd take the wind out of a T3C blops scout's sails in no time.



Yeah that is the solution here. Make hictor bubbles > interdiction nullification. So nullification only works on anchored and dictor bubbles.

As for the smartbombs. If you're not derp ,and you use pings you can't be smartbombed. The ONLY way to stop a ceptor from getting through your gate camp is lock time < 1 second, and getting REALLY lucky on a server tick.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#362 - 2017-06-10 16:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
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)

How about if anchored deployables slowly lose hull structure (for the same amount of deployed time), but only explode when hull runs out? Perhaps something that keeps their EHP the same, I'm not looking to make them easier to kill, though.

This way, if your bubbles are running out, you can use remote HULL repairers to extend the time.

And that opens a whole new can of worms, too! Bonused hull repair ships (ORE stuff?) Having to bring/fit/use one of the most arguably pointless modules to camp gates.

OR: Just have remote hull reppers extend bubble time, without touching any of their hitpoints. That actually sounds better, now that I think about it.
Lamajagarn McMyra
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#363 - 2017-06-16 02:06:52 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)


I do believe there is a place for them, they must however be balanced to not be uncatchable. Preferably a internulli ship should not be able to have an align time of t<5 seconds. Providing they use the mjd-cloak trick that gives a window of oppertunity for catching and decloaking of like 1-3 sec, still really hard but somewhat possible.

As for the anchorable bubbles i belive they hold a place as well. another one (albeit smaller) with decloaking abilities inside the bubble field would be nice to!


BiBaBumm
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2017-06-16 07:42:18 UTC
I see it a little bit different.

A nullified ship should always be a paper plane.
AA slow aligning ship is dead on gates and you need ships for recon jobs.
These ships can call big friends, but should not be able to do much damage alone.

Aligntime > 3 sec = KIA
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#365 - 2017-06-26 08:55:15 UTC
Quote:
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?


No. Nullified anything makes nullsec just like lowsec. The whole point of nullsec is that players control the space out there and they can prevent people from moving around in their space. How do they accomplish that? Bubbles. Inties especially are absolutely absurd being able to completely dodge any camp that doesn't have someone with a good ping/insta locker. It makes nullsec owned space feel fairly worthless if you cannot even control access into/out of it.

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


HELL NO. Remove all nullification from non-combat ships. It's ban enough when it's on combat ships, but if someone hostile is in your space, and they've got a bubble up, it should mean you have to go through it.

Frankly though, nullification should be removed from all ships with the possible exception of AT ships. Losing a single slot on a t3 for a nullifier is hardly a trade-off anyone is going to bat an eye about and if people really hate their shuttles getting caught in bubbles, than they don't belong in nullsec/ they should ship up with some friends and blow them up.

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


Yes and yes. Make the decay 2-3 hours minimum and 10-12 hrs max. Ideally small bubbles decay quicker than large bubbles, and same deal goes for t1 vs t2 bubbles.
Ghazbaran
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2017-06-30 10:04:47 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Afternoon folks,

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?



Nullified combat ships shouldn't exist. They are too strong for scouting. There is currently no downside to using an interceptor for scouting when going on a hunt. They are nearly uncachable as they were before interdiction nullification came around.

Shuttles seem like a good option for being nullified, but make them T2. I feel like travelceptors are what T2 shuttles should look like right now. Nullification should strictly be for getting around New Eden.

Anchorable bubbles should always exist. No decay, but yes to thievery. "Some type of entosis?" (<- not my idea but thought it was amazing) We already have a "HACKING" minigame so... I would love to see that applied to other things that are not exploration. More gameplay options and