Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
FistyMcBumBardier
TURN LEFT
126
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:16:20 -
[91] - Quote
My main thing from a small gang perspective is that anchorable bubbles need to be reworked. They are commonly spammed in pipes on all of the gates leading up to the ratting pocket. Requiring burning through 100km's of bubbles even with proper bookmarks. The only options to this is to blitz interceptors through with the main force following later.
As is the only way to deal with them is through damage, this allows very little room for counter play. Let them be hackable, unanchorable, or able to be stolen by enemy combatants. Or just give them a resource necessary for them to stay anchored, where if they run out of the resource they are free game.
Give us the ability to roam through areas of space with a small little hacker, stealing the untended bubbles. Let there be trash collectors and salvager's in New Eden! |
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen Grumpy Space Bastards
271
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:17:15 -
[92] - Quote
kasbah wrote:Deployable bubbles should exist but interference from overlapping bubbles should make them unstable and not work. Would fix bubble?-ú&@ed gates.
Maybe overlap results in diminishing returns like PI.
Have it impact the duration of the bubble or something. |
Joan Andedare
Licence To Kill Mercenary Coalition
15
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:17:43 -
[93] - Quote
- combat ships: combat ships shouldn't be nullified.
interceptors should be split ion a scout one with fast align time, nullification and reduced combat and tackle abilities. (something like a low dps ares without the point range bonus, maybe even a negative bonus to point range). there ships would be good as taxis and scouts. the other ceptor should have a tackle role, with a bit more dps than the scout one and a point/scram range bonus (5-10% per level) as well as a sig radius reduction for MWDing, but a longer align time, so they're more vulnerable when travelling. T3Cs should keep their nullification but the subsystem needs to restrict them to non-DPS roles (-50% rate of fire for all weapons, -50% optimal, falloff, missile flight time). this way T3Cs can still be used for utility roles, for explo, hunting, travel,..., but can't be used for damage.
- non-combat ships: the non-combat situations where nullification would be nice are hauling, travel, explo, mining.
there should be a hauling ship with nullification for low volumes (max 500m-¦). the ship could have a small align time bonus per level (shouldn't be able to instawarp) for travel the scouting ceptor and T3C should fill that role, no need for another ship imo explo needs at least one ship that can be cloaky nullified. currently the T3Cs do that and it should stay that way. they are versatile enough to allow explorers to chose the ship and fit that best suits hteir habits and preferences, while still having enough drawbacks (price, speed, align time, low dps) to make them not completely OP I can't say much about mining, since I have next to no experience with it, but from my perspective there isn't any need for a nullified mining ship.
- anchorable bubbles: they should exist imo, but have their HP reduced by about 15% to make them easier to kill and they should have a 12h timer on them (cost and radius should stay the same). after the timer they despawn. this keeps them viable for active use (for a gatecamp, to delay hostiles so they can't interfere with an op or to give yourself some safety while ratting/mining/whatever in a system, etc.) but makes it very expensive and a lot of work top spam 100 of them on a gate.
my reasoning for the nullified combat ships: the main issue is when those ships are able to do too many things at the same time, so the goal should be to redue the amount of roles nullified ships can do. with the loss of either DPS or align time ceptors would lose their role as cheap near-invulnerable harassment fleets, and instead be more focused on roles they're already used for extensively: scouting and tackle, at the expense of no longer being as viable for the other. T3Cs have a unique place in EVE since they are so incredibly versatile for both combat and non-combat roles. what they require however is a set of bonuses on the relevant subsystems (mostly nullification and ewar) that make them not viable for DPS roles (other combat roles, like as hunters should still be possible, those options are worth having imo). |
Circumstantial Evidence
371
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:21:50 -
[94] - Quote
Perma-bubbles make gate lock-downs or camps too easy. Anchored bubbles should expire. They should be reworked to use the "new deployables" mechanic of dragging from cargo and dropping into space.
Tech 1 could become fully disposable / non-recoverable once deployed. T2 could become the only type capable of being un-anchored and re-deployed. T2's tremendous cost (advanced technology!) compared to T1 should be rewarded.
Here are some timings to consider (Hours). Option 1: T2 versions can be un-anchored and re-deployed to reset the timer
Small: 1 Medium: 4 Large: 16 Option 2: Neither T1 nor T2 can be re-deployed: T2 should last 4-5 times longer than T1. |
Oceane Chevalier
Maple Moose The Bastion
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:33:36 -
[95] - Quote
Nullified combat ships Nullification at the core deters fights. For inty's, if you combine that with very fast align time, only the most specialized gate camps have a shot at catching them. It leaves the ship being able to choose it's fight 99% of the time. Back in the day, even without nullification it still gave the ship a good chance to choose but relied a bit more on piloting which again made it more interesting and led to more fights. It should not be risk free. The problem only gets worse in bigger fleets of those.
For T3C, it could've been more complicated with the boosting role. Now that as shifted more to other ship types maybe not as much. As mentioned, as long as there are heavy drawbacks to make them less usable in large fleets but possible in solo that would work (i.e. heavy drawback on weapon range & limit EHP). A bit like you use a solo pilgrim. You have to commit.
If we absolutely want something to scout with, transfer nullification from inty's to covops. A good scout is usually a covop or T3D with probes anyway.
Nullified non-combat ships We should then transfer the taxi role of inty's to two spin-offs; a special shuttle, i.e. Leopard (to move a clone or a few BPC) & blockade runners (for slightly bigger loads). I would not put it on DST's to keep it balanced. Anyway DST's take too long to align so they can be easily tackled.
Anchorable bubbles You can put a decay on it as mentioned but leave the ability to scoop it at any time during that window without penalty. Ideally I would shoot for 1 hour minimum on T1 small and up. Some said 30min but that's ridiculous especially if you are in a busy area and do not have time to manage the anchor/unanchor very often. People usually commit to a gate camp for an hour or more anyway. |
Talon Kardee
Titans of Doom Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:34:55 -
[96] - Quote
Hi there,
I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was:
O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping...
I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay.
But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess!
You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system.
Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way!
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
107
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:35:22 -
[97] - Quote
Interdiction was perfectly fine just on T3Cs, before it was added to Interceptors.
The difference between the two cases is that in the case of T3Cs, interdiction requires a sacrifice in combat capability.
There is no such sacrifice for interceptors, and that is the big issue. |
Akballah Kassan
Flames Of Chaos
102
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:38:01 -
[98] - Quote
Bubbles should either disappear 4 or 8 hours after anchoring to prevent the stupid perma bubbled safe zones in null sec - OR there should be nullification rigs that can be fit to ANY ship. |
RomeStar
4.20ly Mining Range Circle-Of-Two
582
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:39:41 -
[99] - Quote
Nullification is a good thing. Anchored bubbles without decay is a good thing. Those that say they arent are too lazy to burn bookmarks. Thats my opinion. If you remove nullification then you will ultimately kill the T3 cruiser market.
Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
|
Kagehisa Shintaro
Back Door Burglars Wings Wanderers
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:40:56 -
[100] - Quote
Blockade Runners should be Nullified, but along with Cloaky that's too OP. Maybe consider changing the name Blockade Runner over to it's cousin the Deep Space Transport.
Ships currently called BRs (Viator etc) should be called the Deep Space Transports - they need the cloak to operate deep in hostile territory.
Ships currently called DSTs (Occator etc) should be called Blockade Runners and given a form of Nullification, I mean the whole name suggests running Blockades.... Take away the +2 Stab if you need and adjust other specs too to balance it.
As for combat, I think they are in a good place at the moment.
Decaying anchorable bubbles is a good idea, not so fast that you must redeploy every day or so, but perhaps like weekly or so.
Any company can ship. We space ship. - CCP Guard
|
|
Van Doe
14
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:54:26 -
[101] - Quote
Talon Kardee wrote:Hi there,
I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was:
O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping...
I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay.
But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess!
You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system.
Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way!
How did this become a afk cloaky thread?
I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy.
afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3683
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:02:14 -
[102] - Quote
Oceane Chevalier wrote:Nullified combat ships Nullification at the core deters fights..
that is such a narrow view
nullification is also used to get fights
we use it to get into enemy space and drop blops fleets
we use it to catch enemy fleets running while dropping dictor bubbles
BLOPS Hauler
|
darkezero
Doughboys Escalating Entropy
35
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:10:29 -
[103] - Quote
>Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
I think the term "combat ship" either needs to either be fleshed out or use the Ship Tree's definition of combat ship: "Hulls with good damage and defenses. Recommended for heavy frontline brawling."
At the moment, interceptors, under the ship tree, are "attack ships" not "combat ships": "Hulls with good damage and mobility. Recommended for attrition, hit-and-run, and pursuit tactics."
This doesn't even include the "support", "disruption", "tackling", and "exploration", which are all combat capable simply by virtue of being able to fit offensive modules, which can make for an interesting conversation since offensive modules can be used defensively (a hauler fitting an ECM burst to shake off tackle, as an example). Fortunately, the ship tree shows that they can overlap.
I do feel Nullified "Combat Ships" should be allowed, but with all things on a case basis. I feel that Interceptors need to be toned down damage wise, or even split with the "fleet interceptor" retaining its nullification and losing all weapon bonuses while the "combat interceptor" loses nullification, but otherwise would not feel strongly if they stayed where they are.
>How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
A blockade runner could be a combat ship by virtue of being able to fit a point and a cyno (if you count point+cyno as combat), similar with the yacht, so again it depends on how one defines "combat ship". The only true non-combat ships being the shuttles and freighters, they have no offensive capacity at all.
At the moment, I feel if shuttles had a T2 version, that they could be nullified, but otherwise, are fine as they are. Nullified freighters would be kind of scary.
>Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
I do believe they should exist, and should also decay. I say give the a week, if not accessed similar to mobile depots they then go poof. I do feel there should be a limit to the number on a grid though, say 10 or so. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3683
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:12:49 -
[104] - Quote
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
BLOPS Hauler
|
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
338
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:15:57 -
[105] - Quote
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
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:24:39 -
[106] - Quote
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 Circle-Of-Two
35
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:34:58 -
[107] - Quote
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
nul-li-fy Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 18:35:21 -
[108] - Quote
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. |
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen
44
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:00:11 -
[109] - Quote
Before you waste time on this, fix cloaky campers first. They are a much bigger problem then interdiction and bubbles |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15092
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:03:22 -
[110] - Quote
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
Chao3 Chao3 Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:15:46 -
[111] - Quote
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
Check our Minarchist Space Project!
|
Aalaria Black
THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:19:33 -
[112] - Quote
I'm sure someone has already mentioned my opinion on bubbles and nullification but for the record: I think the mechanics work fine as they are. You still have be paying attention to not get caught on a gate camp in null even if you are nullified. Campers can fit insta-lock ships and catch all but the fastest aligning/warping interceptors (and those have to sacrifice basically everything to get the require speed). We regularly decloak even cloaky/warpy T3s so ... get better at camping :)
Instead of timers on bubbles, maybe make them require fuel of some type, so the campers have to keep putting fuel in them to keep the bubble up - I mean that's what you have to do with towers right? entosis uses fuel, sieging uses fuel, cyno's use fuel ... kind of a no brainer really. Then when bubbles run out of fuel they are still anchored just not active.
Soooo .. i think there are plenty of ability / counter abilities for nullification. Don't add any more ships with nullification capability.
What i'd really like to see discussed is CLOAKING!!! there is no real counter to cloaking, once someone is cloaked up in a system they are that way undetectable until downtime. Then they login, cloak up and undetectable. I'd like to see cloaks take fuel, or generate heat and have a cool down, or some high level probing skill introduced to detect very faint cloak emissions, etc etc.
Currently that's one of the things in the game that has no counter. |
Enochia Starr
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
122
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:35:07 -
[113] - Quote
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 WE FORM V0LTA
40
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:35:53 -
[114] - Quote
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! |
Equto
Imperium Technologies
56
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:37:53 -
[115] - Quote
Aalaria Black wrote:I'm sure someone has already mentioned my opinion on bubbles and nullification but for the record: I think the mechanics work fine as they are. You still have be paying attention to not get caught on a gate camp in null even if you are nullified. Campers can fit insta-lock ships and catch all but the fastest aligning/warping interceptors (and those have to sacrifice basically everything to get the require speed). We regularly decloak even cloaky/warpy T3s so ... get better at camping :)
Instead of timers on bubbles, maybe make them require fuel of some type, so the campers have to keep putting fuel in them to keep the bubble up - I mean that's what you have to do with towers right? entosis uses fuel, sieging uses fuel, cyno's use fuel ... kind of a no brainer really. Then when bubbles run out of fuel they are still anchored just not active.
Soooo .. i think there are plenty of ability / counter abilities for nullification. Don't add any more ships with nullification capability.
What i'd really like to see discussed is CLOAKING!!! there is no real counter to cloaking, once someone is cloaked up in a system they are that way undetectable until downtime. Then they login, cloak up and undetectable. I'd like to see cloaks take fuel, or generate heat and have a cool down, or some high level probing skill introduced to detect very faint cloak emissions, etc etc.
Currently that's one of the things in the game that has no counter. Going off this and to not make alliance/corp logistics more aids than it currently is.Maybe a new structure that will automatically fuel nearby bubbles. Then you have something to target to take down all bubbles and you only need to fuel one rather than 25 objects. |
Erroch
STK Scientific DRONE WALKERS
9
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:50:21 -
[116] - Quote
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
64
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:58:17 -
[117] - Quote
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
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
70
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 19:59:35 -
[118] - Quote
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
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 20:05:34 -
[119] - Quote
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
Pathway to the Next
7
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 20:11:51 -
[120] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |