These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sarah Flynt
Flynt Enterprises
Silent Infinity
#21 - 2017-02-01 15:08:41 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

Yes, as long as they dont have the same defense/offense capabilities as the ones without one. If you get more security, you should get less of the rest to keep it balanced.

This and "defense/offense capabilities" should include any kind of cyno. Nullification and cynos (including covert ones) should be mutually exclusive. Covert and nullified T3's used for hotdropping are a joke in their current form.

Yarosara Ruil wrote:
It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever.

Together with the above this could be interresting. Finding the right balance cost-wise will be difficult however.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !

Grarr Dexx
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2017-02-01 15:10:40 UTC
I think that anchorable bubbles without expiration times shouldn't exist. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of drone lands gates being locked down with 100+ large T1 bubbles. It doesn't cost a damned thing and provides near-perfect safety.

Nullification is fine. Bubbles already posed little to no additional effort for interceptor pilots and in most cases, T3 cruisers fitting the modules are already so hamstrung they either have to invest heavily or remain useless just to avoid getting bubbled.
Petit Julot
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2017-02-01 15:12:20 UTC
CSM shouldn't weignt on the metagame, period.

Please do whatever very important other thing you may have to do or just have a drink
Bobmon
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#24 - 2017-02-01 15:14:53 UTC
Thx peeps!

Love hearing your opinion

@BobmonEVE - BOBMON FOR CSM 12

Capri Sun KraftFoods
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#25 - 2017-02-01 15:19:02 UTC
The only combat ships that are nullified are interceptors and cloaky T3s. The clear scope of this in regards to catching ratters in null sec. Interceptors cannot hold point indefinitely. Every currently popular ratting ship can push off an interceptor, and even if it can't the rats will given time. Bubbles can then slow the larger support. There's very little issue with this on either side.

The issue is enormous walls of bubbles 100km+ in every direction of a gate. There are dead end ratting systems in the eastern half of the map where you pass through over a billion ISK of bubbles to reach them. This on it's own isn't an issue were it not for the massive likely bot intel networks that combined are a complete alternative to having any kind of defense plan whatsoever. It's pretty much the ultimate example of the "just stay docked" mentality.

I'm actually even okay with this, I just think it should come at a higher price. If bubbles had an expiration time and were one time use I'd be happy. 7 days seems like a reasonable duration but I'd be open to arguments either way.

Also killmails would be amazing.
K04 78
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2017-02-01 15:21:12 UTC
Hi

Steve Ronuken wrote:

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

No. Combat means risk, and not moonwalk through everything.
Especially Instawarping Inties are a pain. They are an uncatchable cancer for fights they dont want, still a threat if you have a bunch of them.
Plus, they are abused to be a risk-free travel and transport method. Which shouldnt exist in EVE.
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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

Blockade runners already are cloaked. Beeing Nullified makes them uncatchable and 99,9% safe. MWD + cloak is 90% uncatchable already.
Shuttles are way too cheap to be anything than a better POD. Make them warp a bit faster.
Yachts shouldnt exist at all. Cloaky and Nullified, with the option to put WCS and tank on it. Thats such a terrible idea. Remove the lows and/or nullification please. Or at least set aligntime to cruisersize.
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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

Of course they should exist. They add so much tactic to the game.
Let them expire by fuel or time. Thats fine. I'd prefer Fuel for that, as it would allow you to have it run as long as you want, while forcing some logistics to deploy.

Tabernash
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#27 - 2017-02-01 15:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tabernash
If the only thing that comes out of this is some type of required distance between anchor-able bubbles that gets rid of the pure white screen of death when jumping into 50 bubbles anchored on top of each other I would call that a tremendous win.

Think of the kids, think of the eyes. Make gates great again.
Capqu
Half Empty
skill urself
#28 - 2017-02-01 15:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
nullification should be removed from all ships with modules or cargo

it's the antithesis of what the game is about. it gives you free, unstoppable intel or guaranteed safe transport of goods.
nullification removes skill from the equation of scouting, or high value small volume transport.

i think travel should still be basically guaranteed safe, because any removal of tedium is 100% necessary with eve online in its current state

however 100% remove it from ships with guns or cargo. noone knows any good interceptor pilots these days, because there arent any, because you're in an overpowered pile of ship and dont need to be good
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#29 - 2017-02-01 15:27:02 UTC
Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming!
We're watching this thread.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Capqu
Half Empty
skill urself
#30 - 2017-02-01 15:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
Grarr Dexx wrote:

Nullification is fine. Bubbles already posed little to no additional effort for interceptor pilots and in most cases, T3 cruisers fitting the modules are already so hamstrung they either have to invest heavily or remain useless just to avoid getting bubbled.


wrong

interceptor deaths before nullification were pretty much all from landing with a sabre in a bubble or jumping into a sabre and trying to warp

nowadays ceptor deaths are due to going afk or thinking you can fight something you can't - you'll never die from being caught anymore
epicurus 2
Secret Passage
#31 - 2017-02-01 15:34:25 UTC
The current balance where interdiction capability has a direct relationship or effect on combat ability is fine. No changes to interdiction capabilities is required.

Bubble spamming is a pain in just about every sense, either restrict the number through enforcing a significant distance between them, or make them require fuel.
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#32 - 2017-02-01 15:34:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Winter Archipelago
Steve Ronuken wrote:


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?

I'm against nullified combat ships (primarily T3C's). I feel that including it adds a bit too much strength to them. However, I like the thought on nullification in regards to some specific ships:

I'd love to see Interceptors changed a bit, with four having nullification, better tackle bonuses, and dropping their combat bonuses (Ares, Crow, etc), and four being oriented towards combat but without the nullification bonus (Taranis, Raptor, etc). They would still function as travel ships and could still be used as fast tackle, but would be weak (weaker) in terms of combat, while the ones that are decent at combat won't have the nullification.

I'd also love to see Blockade Runners given nullification. I was surprised a few years back with how the Transport Ships were revamped. I had figured that giving Blockade Runners a bonus to Warp Core Strength and nullification would have been a shoo-in idea (considering the historical use of Blockade-Running ships). The cargo scan immunity strikes me as an odd thing for a ship that's supposed to be difficult to catch (again, "difficult to catch" based on historical usage of their real-life namesakes).

If Blockade Runners were given nullification, however, I think they should have their cargo sizes reduced so that they can get 10k m^3 at the absolute max, using T2 rigs and faction expanders. Historically, they were small ships meant to slip through naval blockades, moving too quickly for the larger ships to catch / keep up with, and too fast to reliably hit with cannon fire. They didn't have a lot of cargo space on them.

As for anchorable bubbles, they should exist, yes, as they serve a useful purpose, but they need to have one of three changes: a large minimum distance from each other (large enough to prevent overlap on even the T2 large bubbles), a decay timer, or generate a killmail. Generating a killmail would probably solve the problems in a much more enjoyable way for the average nullsec and wormhole resident.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2017-02-01 15:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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

yes for WH this is essential. and it is also very important in null for two reasons that i encounter.

1 being able to hit larger groups deep in their space

2 catching or intercepting an enemy fleet
Quote:

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


i have no opinion on this

well except that no BRs do not need this they can already be bridged past bubbles
Quote:

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


at worst i think they should have a 24hr timer however i do not think it is needed.

what is needed is a minimum range you can anchor these near each other so you don't wind up with 50 on a gate you need to slowly kill
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#34 - 2017-02-01 15:39:26 UTC
Forum Rules of Conduct wrote:

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
#

I have removed an off-topic post.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Kirito Litvyak
Doomheim
#35 - 2017-02-01 15:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirito Litvyak
Well it would be nearly impossible to run escalations etc if nullifiers were removed, exploration PVE would become nonexistant outside cheap frigates doing relic sites or escalations within well developed owned sov. NPC null would become complete trash with no activity.
Christy Cloud
The Mongo Tree
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#36 - 2017-02-01 15:41:52 UTC
To copy what I said in slack -

i feel that nullification suits what a ceptors meant to do, a yacht is fine, shuttles i'd actually say no, as it becomes a fairly risk free way of moving your pod

t3 interdiction i feel should have more of a draw back than just "you cant do anything else with this subsystem slot" it should penalize, rather than just not benefit

blockade runners, no - Getting through a bubble is the job of the pilot

as for bubbles, i'd rather they have a cargo that they slowly consume, meaning they have to be maintained, and attackers can send forward scouts to just nick all the ammo

My Third Party Thread(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Current Trades -

Selling 2 Travelfit Erebus 1 rigged 1 unrigged 85bil Ea

Selling 1 Rigged travelfit Avatar 86b

Kirito Litvyak
Doomheim
#37 - 2017-02-01 15:46:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirito Litvyak
Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction?


Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff.
Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble(larger so less can be loaded). Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too)

It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#38 - 2017-02-01 15:48:05 UTC
Christy Cloud wrote:

t3 interdiction i feel should have more of a draw back than just "you cant do anything else with this subsystem slot" it should penalize, rather than just not benefit




to be fair it does. it gives no low slots and is slower and less agile but i agree more could be done i'm in favor of a resist or hitpoint penalty (god knows t3s have enough to spare)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#39 - 2017-02-01 15:49:28 UTC
Kirito Litvyak wrote:
Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction?


Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff.
Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble. Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too)

It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology.



it would be better if there was a hard lower limit on align time so nothing nullified could also instantly warp
Cassie Helio
Push Industries
Push Interstellar Network
#40 - 2017-02-01 15:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassie Helio
Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile.