These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2017-02-21 22:31:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
I like the changes proposed. The T1 Bubbles are good for temporary use. The T2 bubbles are long enough to bubble a structure for a reinforcement window in Nullsec. More than enough in W-Space. A few questions:


  • Will there be any changes to the MINIMUM anchoring distance between deployables or other structures (Gates, Citadels, POS, etc)? This might help prevent some of the bubble spam on gates by forcing the bubles to be spread out a bit more. Some of the tricks, like putting a small bubble inside of a large one to drag a ship deeper into a bubble may be affected (don't know if that's good or not).

  • Will there be a MAXIMUM number of deployables around a structure, or will that be handled by the minimum distance between deployables?

  • One of the proposals from Fanfest 2014 was to merge multiple interdiction fields into one "metaball". This would help save our retinas from blinding whiteness due to the overlap, and may have some performance advantages, as we would only have to render one object instead of many individual spheres. Is there any chance of picking up this initiative as part of the changeover to the new structure type? Here is the video for reference.
Professor Push
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#82 - 2017-02-21 22:44:20 UTC
Nice Changes.
Although I don't know how that timer would play nicely with the bubble graphics on older machines. I assume fine, but in case it doesn't show info would with a timer in days, hours, mins would also be of great help. Bubblef*cking a gate and zooming in is a display process killer sometimes.

Thank you.
Matraca Gogiko
Cuddleswarm
#83 - 2017-02-21 22:49:23 UTC
These durations would be a good starting point if you remove the ability to scoop, while keeping the cost around the same or higher, similar to a moble cynosaural inhibitor or mobile scan inhibitor.

I'd also like to see an XL bubble that could reliably cover the entire spawn area even on regional gates with a little bit of area to spare - part of the problem with bubbles right now is to reasonably cover an entire gate, you often need to use so many bubbles that it becomes a performance issue, and the visuals for anyone inside that are nothing but a while screen. If this were to be introduced, kick back the durations of the smaller bubbles a bit and give this the 1 week duration proposed for T2 bubbles, so that an XL bubble would clearly be the more attractive choice. Volume somewhere around 10000-50000m3 maybe?
Circumstantial Evidence
#84 - 2017-02-21 23:30:17 UTC
Matraca Gogiko wrote:
- part of the problem with bubbles right now is to reasonably cover an entire gate, you often need to use so many bubbles that it becomes a performance issue, and the visuals...
This is an interesting idea; but no. Not only do players want to cover a large volume of space, but they also dump lots of them on a gate to create a hitpoint barrier. If your idea was carried out, that barrier would be scaled up enormously and be too easy to set up. White-out conditions will eventually be solved.
cpu939
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2017-02-21 23:41:46 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
cpu939 wrote:
Myself i would like to see

T1
Small - 5 hours
med - 10 hours
Large - 15 hours

T2 50% bonus on there T1 counter part, faction bubbles 100% bonus on there T! counterpart yes large would give over a days worth of time.

nullified shuttle only


Not sure about the times. Maybe 12/24/48 to align with their current suggestion of 2 days for T1. But yeah, no reason bubble size shouldn't also be considered for decay along with Tech version


+1 the times i add where as a lot of people wanted under the day is see no issue with longer times
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2017-02-21 23:42:41 UTC
Squizz Caphinator wrote:
What about different sizes having different timers, such as T1 small having 12 hours, T1 medium 24 hours, and T1 large 48 hours?

Same logic would apply to T2 and Syndicates.

Howabout that in reverse? T1 large 12 hours, T1 medium 24 hours, T1 small 48 hours.

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."
Harrigan Raen
#87 - 2017-02-21 23:48:37 UTC
How about just limiting the amount per grid? Say 30-50?
Stops the people that really abuse them, puts performance/load limits on them.

I don't see how adding a decay timer fixes any of the root problems:
Botters can still bot, now a player controlled person will just re-anchor the bubbles on the gate once per day, while the bots mine.
Even if they aren't botting, 4-5 people once a week re-anchorring the whole gate will only take 1-2 hours max.

Now on the flip side,
Since Reddit got out the pitchforks and you guys responded in what 2 weeks?
Can we get that anchorable structure that blocks cloaking?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2017-02-21 23:51:39 UTC
Harrigan Raen wrote:
How about just limiting the amount per grid? Say 30-50?

Then people will anchor the max number of bubbles in a distant part of the grid in order to prevent a thing from being bubbled. That will probably increase server load overall, and will definitely create a new kind of PVP that I don't think we really need. Besides, EVE is supposed to be a limitless place. If people put up enough bubbles in an area to lead to time dilation, we should be patting ourselves on the back and kicking CCP to reinforce the servers, not suggesting limits that prevent this gameplay.

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."
Kaleesh
ISK BURNER
#89 - 2017-02-21 23:52:57 UTC
I like to see the changes coming, but PLEASE, make it so that the bubbles not only create a killmail, also a wreck to salvageCool
Jacques Arkaral
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2017-02-21 23:57:54 UTC
Lets trade

Bubble timers get implemented per design of this thread.
Cloaking devices require fuel or they get Activation Time/Duration timers and Reactivation Delays.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#91 - 2017-02-22 00:38:54 UTC
Olmeca Gold wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Now lets remove nullification from anything but an interceptor.


Oh the amount of playstyles you have to be ignorant of to even suggest this makes me lol

PS: Lots of us dont care about how frustrating nullified combat ships might have been for nullblob people. Two things this game definitely absolutely needs to keep having are nullified covert cyno ships and nullified probers.


> bombers bar hotdropper

"Two things this game definitely absolutely needs to keep having are nullified covert cyno ships and nullified probers."

The ONLY thing your corp seems to do is makes use of nullified t3s to blops hotdrop. It's one tiny singular playstyle, and while it does suit you well, or used to anyway, before that "olmeca gold 'you can't smartbomb me twice, PL! haha!'" drama blew up bombers bar into a pretty weak state lately (congrats on that, Olmeca, you made nullbearing a lot safer), it's also part of why strategic cruisers are in a broken state. The sooner it's (t3 nullificant subs) gone, the sooner ships like hacs and recons can start being seen as useful again. About time arazu and rapier hunters came back too.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#92 - 2017-02-22 00:59:39 UTC
Please, among other things:

No role requirement to anchor bubbles for Corp.
An anchor/unanchor timer visible at least to the pilot who triggered the action and preferably to anyone allowed to pick it up again.
Shorter use periods but either refresh by mere interaction (like with a Mobile Depot) or power by Cap Booster charges. As previously posted in the Warp Bubble Dragging Change thread 6 months ago (with minor edits):

I'd rather see a refresh mechanic combining elements of classic POS and anchorable cans/fitting stations. System only has enough "charge" to run for so long, then goes down, but stays anchored. Player who anchored it (or someone from their corp/alliance, perhaps) then visits the bubble and "recharges" it, making it active again until the charge wears down. This could either be done as an artificial process through a timer, or with everyone's favorite inexpensive "munitions", cap booster charges.

Actually, giving cap booster charges something else to be useful for would be a good thing for that item class; the most meaningful gameplay is achieved through interaction, and options. So let's pull the ASB into this cross-comparison for more flavor.

Player anchors a bubble. The bubble needs a power supply to run, and can get it one of two ways. Either a player can online the bubble for a single cycle (ie 1 hour) using their ship's capacitor, or they can supply it with cap booster charges which it will eat until it runs out. Similar to the ASB, the appropriate size of the cap booster (and, consequently, the amount pulled from a ship) depends on bubble size (no differentiation between tech level, ergo t2 makes a larger bubble for the same charge cost).

Using such a system, a tended bubble is relatively inexpensive to maintain, since cap is constantly regenerating on a ship, but an untended bubble will have a finite operation time, regardless of power supply. For a little extra flavor (but harder back-end design), online bubbles could be cap drained instead of destroyed outright to shut them down.
Ruby Gnollo
#93 - 2017-02-22 01:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruby Gnollo
CCP Fozzie wrote:

From these threads it's clear that the community has a strong desire for some changes to mobile warp disruptors, as many of those topics kept coming up from many diverse voices.


CCP : Eve is your game : do whatever you like with the game, the playerbase answers, moving its real cash where it sees fit.

Once again the CSM, like every year, made itself the voice of the very few. Who can believe anyone would pay for a game where being farmed by plexed accounts is what you should expect ? CCP, don't tell me you do believe that.

Let's hope these changes will help you earn more money, cause this will mean your players will have found the hame better this way.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#94 - 2017-02-22 01:05:20 UTC
Querns wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:
Querns wrote:
I'd also support interdiction nullification being effective for anchored bubbles, but not for warp disrupt probes and/or warp disruption field generators.



No change needed, interceptors are fine as they are adding a nullified shuttle wouldn't hurt though,


False. Interceptors have combat capability. As such, there should be an expectation to be able to stop them from running, rampant, through your space, if you're willing to dedicate human effort towards it.

This is why I support nullification being only effective towards "passive" bubbles.


Anchored bubbles should have no effect on nullified ships where as a launched bubble (hic or dictor) does.

As Querns said - To catch that nullified ceptor or T3 you need to put in the effort with real people in the right ship types (hics and dictors) not just an anchored bubble.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Erika Mizune
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#95 - 2017-02-22 01:17:24 UTC
I like this change Cool

Also, more stuff to KM whore on!

Former DJ & Manager of Eve Radio | Blog | Sounds of New Eden | Twitch | Twitter
Alexhandr Shkarov
The MorningStar. Syndicate
#96 - 2017-02-22 03:51:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The numbers we're working with right now are:
  • Two days for all T1 bubbles
  • One week for all T2 bubbles
  • Two weeks for all Syndicate bubbles



I do not believe that this is aggressive enough. A bubble should not be an item that can be left attended for weeks in order to shield a system. I feel that it requires interaction with these bubbles or else they unanchor and deactivate. Instead of your numbers, I personally believe the following would be a lot more in line with what we need:

  • Twelve hours for all T1 bubbles
  • 24 hours for all T2 bubbles
  • 48 hours for all Syndicate bubbles


This doesn't mean that the item disappears, it just goes offline and stops working. This way the defending party needs to put effort into redeploying their defenses. Any bubbles remaining at downtime that float in space without being anchored should then just be purged.

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.
Equto
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#97 - 2017-02-22 04:55:07 UTC
So few people see why the timelimits were set to where they are. This is a test to see just how manned the bubbles really are. To everyone acting like the reason you want timers is due to "inconvenience" during travel. Realize that ratters cannot protect their space they will just move to highsec incursions or missions and you will still be left without the easy kills you are attempting to generate from this, just like the removal local scream.
Siegfried Hilanen
Immaterium Holding
#98 - 2017-02-22 04:58:17 UTC
another isk sink introduced by ccp.


and all the big slow miners, must join a big blob.. or put up new bubbles every few days.. Like doing PI, (getting burned out yet?) and why? so ****** mcgee gets to not use his mwd? all these small gangs are nanofit anyways.


lets face it rorqual mining is a success.


the fact that you guys wanna generate a killmail out of this bubble, just shows how elite pvp you guys are.. /sadface
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#99 - 2017-02-22 05:06:54 UTC
Doyey3731 wrote:
I'd suggest lowering the build cost for them if this is going to happen. T2 large can be pretty pricey if you're buying several, replacing them every few days will be expensive.

How much can you make ratting for a few days?
If between a group of ratters you can't afford to replace your bubbles "every few days", you're doing it wrong.
It is a cost that allows you safer ratting - Put it down as an expense like ammo.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#100 - 2017-02-22 05:35:49 UTC
The duration is fine considering that we have an incentive to shoot them now. Honestly, that's probably the only change that was needed.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.