Can you put them inside other mobile warp disruptors?

There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.

Did that actually happen? Got a link where rise said that?

I'd like a CCP statement on what they think of the whole situation. Clearly, the ESS is crap and they surely know that by now.

All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!

[Malediction, suicide cyno]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II
Expanded Cargohold II

Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Warp Disruptor II

Cynosural Field Generator I
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Small Cargohold Optimization I
Small Cargohold Optimization I


So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.

With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.

TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).

Thank you Super Friends!


P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.

Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable

Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.

It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.

This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it.

What if CSM didn't object at all, then it makes you wonder even more.

Especially after post #47.

I think that based on the feedback, you should be looking at:
-Removing the ESS.

Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.

So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.

• Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
• Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
• As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
• As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.

By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals.

In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well.

Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.


e1: Going to call back a much earlier post in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4108628#post4108628

Elements of this could be incorporated, most notably the somewhat higher EHP and the short, fixed duration reinforcement timer as a means of governing access, thus committing someone seeking to steal from the structure to both having a decent amount of DPS and giving defenders a reasonable amount of time to reship and respond.

so you mean that we need to actually do another protest in jita and stuf, with mass unsub, leading to some of you guys being fired for you to finally listen to us?

seems we have a deal then.....

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties.

I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties.

I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight

[quote=Gizznitt Malikite]
As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight.

Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.

There are three reasons inties are very popular:
1.) They are fast, meaning you can partake in a 60-system roam in the time it takes BC's to traverse 20 systems.
2.) They have the best shot at catching ratters (mainly because they are fast).
3.) They can disengage and gtfo (this is why nano-gangs are so popular).

I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.

So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right?

Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so.

It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.

Sorry if I gotta bolt after this for a while, but I was trying to has out the idea that if the time on station is made much longer (and no warp off and come back junk) to steal from the structure, then the ceptors end up not being a threat (to income) as long as you have some kind of fleet in the area to chase them off. That's where the newbie training fleets idea comes in.

Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught".

I don't insist a person PvE'ing attempt to engage us in PvE fit ships either. What I want to see is raid-able farms and fields where you get benefits for harvesting but only if you defend it from others harvesting it first.

Chase them. If they ever plan to do anything except warp gate to gate, a decent pilot can catch an interceptor.