These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#101 - 2017-02-01 18:12:49 UTC
darkezero wrote:
split with the "fleet interceptor"



i think this is actually a good idea it would be a good way to help mange balance
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#102 - 2017-02-01 18:15:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Brewlar Kuvakei
Blatantly obvious things wrong with indirection.

Inderection benefits defenders far too much. You should not be able to warp into a field if people can not warp out. Ie if you bubble a gate for 200km then you should have to slow boat that 200km as well as the poor SOB who jumps into it. If you pop a mobile field then warp too's should have to slow boat from the edge of your field.

Basically make inderction a two way affair instead of the 1 way it is currently.

I also believe but to a much less important extent,


Inderection should not be an afk or nonplayer activity. All indirection should be manned and use a ship to do so.

Anchored bubbles should be removed from game but if you decide to keep them then of course they should expire.

The current problem being ratters hiding behind 2 gates of 200km bubbles, you're not killing those people without nullified ships or travelling via wh or login tricks.

Make these changes and delay local by 5 mins in null, 2 mins in low and wow eve would be a pvp slaughter house again :)
Dota Locke
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2017-02-01 18:24:39 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?

Yes, you should be able to travel fit *combat* ships. That being said I wouldn't be opposed to a change that gives a penalty to combat performance for doing so.

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

Yes, because otherwise logistics gets to be a thing only done by vets in jump freighters.

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

As someone who gets killed more because of them rather than benefit from them I still say yes. Anchor-able objects actually make the world feel alive instead of just an empty skybox you float around in.
Galendil
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#104 - 2017-02-01 18:34:58 UTC
Poision Kevin wrote:
+1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less.

10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space.

T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks.

Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess.

Yachts Definetly yes.

Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze.



^^This^^ but also, should limit the number of bubbles within X amount of km of another bubble

--- | --- Flammis Acribus Addictis --- | ---

Protical
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#105 - 2017-02-01 18:35:21 UTC
My thoughts:

Anchored bubbles should have timer/fuel.

Example: 100 LO (Full capacity) fuels bubble for 6 hours

Short of removing nullified ships, perhaps make it a module or a skill with a cool-down.

Example:

Jump into a bubble- use interdiction "nullifier" module to escape bubble. Can't use again for 1 hour.
Probably for ceptors only.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#106 - 2017-02-01 19:03:22 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

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


Nullified small combat ships, sure. Dual Cyno scram fit Cloaky/Nullified insanely High Hitpoint Tech3 ships are an abomination that needs to DIAF.


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


No problem with these as they can still sometimes be caught.

Quote:

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


Yes and IMO yes.
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#107 - 2017-02-01 19:15:46 UTC
Thanks for asking the community directly about that.

I believe nulification should be split into two types of nullification:
- nullification that allows a ship to warp from within a bubble
- nullification that prevents a ship from being dragged or stopped by a bubble.

Nullification should not be built in the hull, but available for those ships from module limited to one of those types of nullification.
This way combat ships benefiting from nullification would lose part of their power, much like T3 cruiser do.

Some modules could have a cool-down to limit the number of time a ship benefit from nullification in a row.

I'd also would like to see a new module that deactivates bubbles which are not linked to an active ship module (i.e. not affecting HICs bubble to encourage using those ships defensively) temporarily at a high cost cap cost for example, to prevent other potential hostile action for a few seconds from this ship and make it vulnerable.

Static mobile bubbles should have a slow loss of HP over time, so they get easier to destroy over time and eventually self-destruct after a week, forcing those using them to maintain their protective wall every week.

Candidate for CSM XII

Enochia Starr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#108 - 2017-02-01 19:35:07 UTC
Interceptors should lose interdiction. It's silly how many can just fly right through, and is ruining sov mechanics. If not, make it a module, with significant costs.
erittainvarma
Fistful of Finns
#109 - 2017-02-01 19:35:53 UTC
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
From solo to small gang (1-10) perspective, I think current nullification and interdiction mechanics are in pretty good balance and I wouldn't touch them / remove or add nullification to any ship.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
Anchorable bubbles should exist, but they should decay over time. I would also add option for everyone to unanchor a bubble if it reaches certain hitpoint threshold, no matter did it reach if by decaying or players shooting at it. Make it possible to steal bubbles!
Erroch
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#110 - 2017-02-01 19:50:21 UTC
Well, my two bits on this.

Nullification is an interesting beast. Maybe instead of making nullification an all or nothing ship trait make it a module that can be fit to ships that are 'nullifyable' currently that hampers their combat potential similar to what was done with warp core stabilizers.

This gives the option to nullify the ships or have them run at 100% functionality, again similar to what was done to alleviate complaints about warp core stabilizers.

I'm mixed on anchorable bubbles. They are the only real way one has to modify the 'terrain' a fight is going to take place on so to speak. Having them last a short amount of time removes some of their defensive (and offensive) uses. Maybe a middle ground. Two lines of bubbles, one that are one shot deployables with a duration, others that are permanent (until blown up) but require fuel to operate? This means if you want your perma 30 bubble gate camp, it will require interaction with the bubbles themselves and put a logistical limit on how many you are willing to fiddle with.
Dracones
Tarsis Inc
#111 - 2017-02-01 19:58:17 UTC
No opinion on the combat ship nullification. But on the industrial ship side I will say it might mix up the "just use a jump freighter" null delivery meta a bit which would be a good thing.

I'm not sure if that should be a blockade runner add-on or not though. I will say that my occator feels 10x more useful than my viator because I can just MWD/Cloak trick on the occator, it carries way more and if I get snagged I have a lot more survival options(burst ECM, jump drive, tank it back to the gate, etc).

Restricting cargo space on any nullified transport wouldn't make much sense either. Typically you'll have long chains of jumps delivering through null and if you need to make 20 trips to push 100k m3 through people won't bother with it and just stick to jump freighters.
Zanar Skwigelf
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#112 - 2017-02-01 19:59:35 UTC
Combat Ships - nullification for PvE ships in null is a good thing. Escalations can be several jumps away. and the only real alternative to safely get there involves jumping a carrier into the escalation system.

Non-combat ships - Making blockade runners warp cloaked and bubble immune is far too powerful. It would make more sense on dst's, and it makes the most sense on t1 ships that cannot cloak+mwd

anchorable bubbles - I think they should not have a timer, however I think they should not be placed directly on a gate (similar to citadels). While a lot of drone land systems are lazy and bubble the gates, there are several systems that place strategically important bubbles, which allow the occupants to catch the neut and kill them without gate camping.

Dagorel Gendo
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#113 - 2017-02-01 20:05:34 UTC
Interdiction on some non-combat ships is a very useful tool and I would not want to see it go away, but I do not like uncounterable effects, giving the Hictor the ability to have a script catch-anything-smaller range bubble would be a good way to provide some way to counter. I dont think ceptors need it stripped from them, if they do, they go back to the realms of AFs and nobody would ever use them. Someone floated the idea of a "interdiction module" which would be a good way to go about it, have some negative effects, smaller holds (limiting cyno) though I would not put negative resists on it. if it reduces the hold, maybe give it to Blockade runners, but they already are pretty slippery and adding that would be extremely slippery. Yatts are fine. shuttles on their own, no, a t2 shuttle? maybe, but its a shuttle......

Defense in this game is hard to come by and you dont want to completely degrade it. I would not want to see bubbles go away, but some limitations on their usage would be in order so the preverbal 100km bubble wall is not a thing. The idea of a single superlarge bubble for structures is interesting, which would allow for the idea of fueling to keep it functioning. If we have strong defensive bubble, then potentially give lifespan to smaller bubles, or give them very small fuel hold and not sustanble to keep going long term.

And to echo another point, I too would like to see a counter to AFK cloaking.


Silas Grimm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#114 - 2017-02-01 20:11:51 UTC
No timer on anchored bubbles in J-Space. Connections we bubble are transient to begin with. Imposing a timer or a requirement to 'man' them does not work well in this space.

Though I agree on a timer for them in empire.
Shalkto
Bedlam Industrial Group Inc.
#115 - 2017-02-01 20:27:36 UTC
Nullified Combat ships i think is fine, any game mechanic can be abused and removing interceptors nullification sounds like overkill to me. Yes griefing people who don't necessarily have the same combat skills as others is a hallowed trophy sought by many of the sheltered individuals of eve however, throwing the rest of us a bone to be able to drop the middle finger at those types is just as good too.

Bubbles should have an anchor distance and a decay timer i'm surprised this has never been sought before it is ridiculous what some people do with these bubbles.

Non combat nullified ships should exist too the blockade runners make more sense than anything in the world to have this ability because what good are they at blockade running if they can't actually run a blockade? May as well just call em really fast cargo ships that stop suddenly.
Smack Talk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2017-02-01 20:31:20 UTC
Personally I think all nullification should come from a module like it does with T3C's,basically forcing you to sacrifice something else in order to obtain it. In my scenario I would make an exception for shuttles,yachts and maybe blockade runners/DST's. I also agree that unmanned bubbles,especially 40-50 on a single gate is ridiculous. I believe those bubbles should either be limited or take fuel to operate if they are going to be unmanned.
Blind Mongolian
Eurotrash
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
#117 - 2017-02-01 20:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Blind Mongolian
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
I think it's certainly within the realm of discussion that there are legitimate reasons for some ships to have interdiction nullification. Examples of this are non-combat interceptors i.e. Ares, Stiletto etc. being used to scout for larger fleets. That said, I believe agility on these ships should definitely be a trade-off for being nullified. Unlockable interceptors have very little counterplay, and has honestly had a negative impact on the game. That said, combat interceptors like the Taranis, Crusader, etc. should not be nullified in this way. This ability too freely allows them engagement selection, and for ships designed to be combat frigates, this usually negatively impacts those who want to fight them. T3s are a more complex discussion but I believe ultimately if the covops cloaking subsystem is allowed to continue to exist in its current iteration, it should also share significant agility penalties as mentioned earlier.

How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Shuttles have too high an agility to qualify for interdiction nullification in my opinion, and in this regard, I believe they fill a decent role in their current form - fast cheap travel in hisec. Blockade runners may be viable, but at agility penalty. Yachts are a decent middle ground and as they are a limited item, I don't think it's necessary to change them as they are.

Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
I would be surprised to find very many who would say that they don't need to exist - they are a great part of nullsec gameplay on both PvE and PvP sides of gameplay and provide a lot of depth that lowsec otherwise does not. I think their decay is something for discussion, and I personally think removing anchorable bubbles at downtime might be a viable option. However, I believe giving killmails for these bubbles (something that has been requested for years) would be a good start by giving players an incentive to clear them out manually.
Natheniel
Mostly Sober
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#118 - 2017-02-01 20:37:40 UTC
I believe the bubbles should have a timer. But I also believe that systems should be able to be secured. So what about instead of a timer, it requires a small fuel cost?

Also, i had an idea to help with system security and to give it a bit more of a dynamic then just 'anchor 200 bubbles on a gate' What about a sov structure upgrade that allowed you to interlock bubbles on a gate to form one large bubble? This mod would require a sov level for it, you would need to fuel it x number of bubbles + bubble normal fuel costs. So it wouldnt be super cheep to do, but would also reduce lag issues with large number of bubbles on gates and give attackers a central point to attack, the interlock node of the bubbles on the gate which would bring down the entire setup but would have a lot of EHP with a damage cap, or have a reinforce timer with the damage cap like citadels.

"Life is as a storm, one must be prepared for the hardship and scorn. But with in this is a light, one for which we must fight. For hope is our weapon and our dreams are our shield. When fully armed we can not be felled from the field."

yamamoto suhara
Lowsexgate to STAIN
#119 - 2017-02-01 20:46:12 UTC
50 large bubles anchored on nullsec gates become v common thing this days.is this good for the game ,for player v player interaction?is just making game experience worse...there are a lot of things that need to be adressed
hope u gona change something.u got my 3 votes:)
Muon Farstrider
Hidden Flame
The Ancients.
#120 - 2017-02-01 20:52:54 UTC
My opinion: interdiction nullification should not be able to be combined with strong combat ability. I don't think you should be able to have such a potent tool for strategic mobility on a hull that also has strong on-grid combat presence, as it upsets the balance between strategic and tactical combat roles.

For t3 cruisers, this would entail tweaks to the attributes of the nullification subsystem. I am not intimately familiar with the details of t3 cruiser systems, but if the current attributes of said subsystems are insufficiently restrictive, more drawbacks should be added - perhaps reductions in fitting, or lock range/scanres, or others.

For interceptors, I would, as frequently suggested, split the two classes of interceptor further by removing nullification from the 'combat' interceptors. However, I would combine this with other tweaks to the class, in order to help them better fulfill their roles.

What does the name 'Interceptor' imply? At least to me, the answer is 'mobility', but there are two senses of that word. First, mobility on *strategic* scales - quickly and easily moving from one grid to another, or one system to another. Second, mobility on *tactical* scales - quickly and easily moving from one location to another over short distances. Currently, both classes of interceptor have a mismash of tools for manipulating both strategic and tactical mobility. What I would do is draw a distinction between the two classes along this line - fleet interceptors are masters of strategic mobility, while combat interceptors are masters of tactical mobility.

At its core, interdiction nullification is largely a strategic mobility tool. It allows for freedom in accessing critical fixed locations on grids such as stations or stargates, and allows for freedom in moving between grids. In other words, it allows for much freer movement onto, off of, and between grids, but does (relatively) less for tactical-scale in-combat maneuvering. By contrast, the tool for tactical mobility is the MWD, rather than the warp drive.

Fleet interceptors thus would retain their nullification, as this strategic mobility is ideally suited to their roles of scout and 'initial tackle'. They would similarly retain their point range and cap use bonuses; removing enemy strategic mobility from long ranges, as the flipside of their own strategic mobility. However, they would lose their bonus to *scram* range, since the benefit of scrams over points is a *tactical* mobility benefit - shutting off MWDs. They could still use them, of course, but only the same as everyone else. Thus, they remain well suited to the 'interceptor' role, but in a strategic sense of quickly reaching the location of their target and stopping their strategic movement.

Meanwhile, combat interceptors get a significant rework to focus on tactical-scale mobility. They lose interdiction nullification, since it is a strategic tool rather than a tactical one, and they also lose the tackle capacitor use bonus as it is mostly relevant for points rather than scrams/webs. Rather, they replace these with bonuses relevant to MWD use, both their own and others. First, they gain a 50% role bonus to scram (but not point) range, and second they gain a 33% role bonus to agility while using an MWD. (That is, a 33% reduction in the intertia modifier, which almost exactly eliminates the MWD mass-induced agility *reduction* but does not *increase* agility.) This renders them the masters of movement at *less* than the 150km warp limit - they're already quick, but their MWDs now get up to speed faster and turn on a dime, and they can shut off the MWDs of other ships at longer than normal (but still not HIC-esque) ranges. This renders them well suited to the 'interceptor' role their name suggests, but in an on-grid sense rather than a strategic one. (One might even also reduce their warp speed somewhat, if you *really* want to enforce a distinction between the two classes.)

As for bubbles, the problem is the infinite-duration no-maintenance eye-burning gate bubblewraps. I do think that permanent 'terrain modifications' have their place in eve, but the current implementation lends itself to abuse. As such, I would modify anchorable bubbles as follows.

Current bubbles switch to the modern 'drag from cargo hold' deployment system, and gain a duration. The size wouldn't change duration (the advantage of those should be *size*, not longevity), but tech level would - I'm thinking something like 8 hours for a t1, and 12 for a t2. Exact numbers variable, but the point is to be long enough that they last through an op but less than a day. T1 bubbles cannot be scooped and self-destruct when their duration expires, while T2 bubbles can be scooped at any time and merely burn out when their duration expires (though they must be repaired in a station before they can be re-deployed). They should also have somewhat less HP.

I would then add a new class of 'strategic bubbles' that are anchorable structures tied to sov levels. You can only anchor them in your space, and they can't be anchored within a certain range of each other (perhaps 100km or something like that). They also require fuel - not much, they should be fairly cheap to maintain, the point though being that you *do* have to maintain them every day or two. However, they are permanent, have even more HP than a current large bubble, and gain a reinforcement timer as long as they're active (though they do shut down when reinforced).

Thus, you can still use cheap, disposable bubbles to set up camps, block routes during ops, etc, but you can't use them to permanently blanket a gate with infinity bubbles covering everywhere within 100km. However, as long as you're actually around to feed it fuel you *can* still cover said gate with *one* bubble (and it should be equivalent in size to a t2 large, if not a bit bigger), and it's even more resilient than a current bubble.