EVE Search - Sticky:[118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 501	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:47:36 - [1] - Quote Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Judy Mikakka Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:49:11 - [2] - Quote When do you give the avatar more CPU?
SHAGGY ONE Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 10	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:49:39 - [3] - Quote YES DO IT.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2412	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:51:48 - [4] - Quote Fair and elegant change. Ship it! This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
GordonO BURN EDEN 168	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:52:27 - [5] - Quote Judy Mikakka wrote: When do you give the avatar more CPU? Off-topic. Pls remove and ban from forums ... What next ??
Tarmogoyf Love Echelon 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:53:09 - [6] - Quote imgay
White 0rchid SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 9	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:53:53 - [7] - Quote GordonO wrote: Judy Mikakka wrote: When do you give the avatar more CPU? Off-topic. Pls remove and ban from forums http://i.imgur.com/FZWkWgn.png This button is there for a reason. I think the change is good. This means no more citadel dragging on gates I would assume?
Skyler Hawk The Tuskers The Tuskers Co. 80	Posted - 2016.07.01 10:57:34 - [8] - Quote Seems like a very good change.
Kahanis Inkunen KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:01:41 - [9] - Quote The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1499	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:03:29 - [10] - Quote Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. Seeing as we don't generally care about bubblefucked gates you jump into, I doubt this is a problem.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 502	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:04:57 - [11] - Quote Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Kimimaro Yoga Paragon Trust The Bastion 56	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:07:00 - [12] - Quote This seems like such a no-brainer that I'm not sure why it wasn't done back when the grid size was expanded so dramatically. In general it doesn't seem like the drag effect was intended to work at ranges of thousands to tens of thousands of KM. Allowing this in the first place is a major buff to the tactic, as being within MWD range of the gate/station/etc is no longer feasible. Specifically looking at the citadels issue, my understanding is that citadels can't be placed close to gates precisely so that they can't interfere with gate travel. Dragging directly to within range of a citadel rather negates that limitation. Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3
Damhest Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:07:09 - [13] - Quote I'm against this. I would rather love bubbles to break the warp anywhere in-between start and finish warp points, including safespots, and removing drag-bubble mechanics (because you exit warp before them). This looks harsh, but it would bring in a reasonable amount of difficulty to gang chases and fleet warfare.
Arizan Holosalintan Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:07:54 - [14] - Quote I disagree Currently there are interdiction nullified ships present in the game, allowing for the avoidance of Citadel drag bubbles. Travel ceptors are unlockable and should be used to scout your routes. If you're travelling a route you haven't scouted, it should the defender. Grids are currently 8'000km. Grids of this size would be not be fully utilized if we're only going to use 500km. Warp disruption bubbles and drag bubbling allow for grid manipulation and control. The ability to change the terrain and manipulate it allows for interesting scenarios to develop based upon point of origin and setup. Bubble camping a gate with a citadel only puts you in range of the PDS systems, as such small things (if you haven't scouted your) you'll be affected. If you have scouted your route, why are you warping gate to gate? Shouldn't you bounce from a moon, planet or anomaly to avoid bubble? If you're bigger, haven't scouted, and land in the bubble depending on the ship you have you'll land in a warp bubble as normal and suffer the consequences. Citadel camping, i.e being on a citadel with carriers and attacking people on the gate bubbles won't be fixed by this. Being in a Citadel camping with the PDS smart bombs won't save you from a manned gate camp. So in brief this change is an attempt to protect travel from manned gate camps. Which it won't prevent because apparently the smart bombs on citadels are too OP (which they aren't) on account of people traveling through space without scouting (which they shouldn't). Does that about cover it?
Cade Kenobi Death Row inc Failed Diplomacy. 20	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:12:21 - [15] - Quote This is a good idea and I'm sure most people would be happy with the change
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 55	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:15:46 - [16] - Quote This is a pretty fair change - I don't have a problem with it as someone who enjoys bubbling gates.
Anthar Thebess 1590	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:19:47 - [17] - Quote No, and i hate bubbles Eve is sandbox - players in nullsec should be allowed to do as they like. Don't take or nerf tools we have. Citadel camping is only possible if person warp directly between the gates. If they use bookmark, any celestial they will not fall into the citadel trap. You stated few times, people can only have citadels, if they control some area of the space, if this is my space i should be allowed to do as i like. If someone is afraid of bubbles - they can use nullified ships. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Grookshank Jump Drive Appreciation Society 112	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:21:30 - [18] - Quote Seems like a good idea.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34067	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:23:00 - [19] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) This makes the meta balls model misleading, don't you think? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1236	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:31:33 - [20] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) are you saying this is fine, or are you saying you'll fix this some other time? it's not fine btw, it's really awful

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1499	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:48:28 - [21] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) are you saying this is fine, or are you saying you'll fix this some other time? it's not fine btw, it's really awful Why? Should warping to direct gate to gate unscouted not be punished?
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative. 455	Posted - 2016.07.01 11:54:21 - [22] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way that you can end up with this currently is if the Larger Bubble is put there by a HIC/DIC, I believe that Kahanis Inkunen was concerned about them both being Anchored items, which current mechanics would put you on the edge of the larger bubble. ----Direction of Travel----> A(edge of Large Bubble B(edge of smaller bubble Concern is that currently you would end at A, with the proposed changes and the correctly distanced bubble placement you'd end up at B.
Avery Lewis Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 1	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:04:23 - [23] - Quote Caldari 5 wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way that you can end up with this currently is if the Larger Bubble is put there by a HIC/DIC, You're wrong.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1236	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:14:52 - [24] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) are you saying this is fine, or are you saying you'll fix this some other time? it's not fine btw, it's really awful Why? Should warping to direct gate to gate unscouted not be punished? getting dragged off by a bubble is being punished. getting dragged into the centre of 50 bubbles is just ridiculous, and I think an unintended thing with the grid changes
gr33nCO Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 8	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:18:28 - [25] - Quote you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues.
Archbishop of Banterbury Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:22:17 - [26] - Quote gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. actually a good idea and easily doable by CCP.... but well.....................
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2413	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:24:08 - [27] - Quote gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. I'd probably say "after a time period" rather than "after downtime;" otherwise, if you anchor a bunch of bubbles in USTZ or before downtime, you get shafted out of many hours of potential life. But yeah, expiration on bubbles is something that would be good. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1236	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:27:00 - [28] - Quote giving anchored bubbles a duration of a couple of hours would be good, and would be much easier than thinking up a clever way to stop people spamming 100 of them
Raging Beaver Bat Country Pandemic Legion 48	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:28:51 - [29] - Quote Introducing a hard cap doesn't seem like a good solution (if anything, it seems a bit lazy). As I presume, the main objective of this change would be to get rid of the gatecamping Fortizars, maybe disallow anchoring bubbles within - say, 100km of the citadels?
Primary This Rifter SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1199	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:33:08 - [30] - Quote Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. I'm pretty sure this just means that you'll be pulled to the edge of the large bubble since it's closer than 500 km. The location of the anchored mobile warp disruptor isn't what's used to determine pulling/stopping, the field edge is.

Archbishop of Banterbury Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:37:08 - [31] - Quote Querns wrote: gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. I'd probably say "after a time period" rather than "after downtime;" otherwise, if you anchor a bunch of bubbles in USTZ or before downtime, you get shafted out of many hours of potential life. But yeah, expiration on bubbles is something that would be good. that sounds even better. also grid bubble limit set to 10 - fixed. TrouserDeagle wrote: giving anchored bubbles a duration of a couple of hours would be good, and would be much easier than thinking up a clever way to stop people spamming 100 of them also a cheeky option to fix it...+1
ApolloF117 HUN Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels 48	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:41:23 - [32] - Quote Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. Thanks for ideas,
ShadowZoor Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 3	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:45:25 - [33] - Quote A good change, however, being able to exploit the exact range with anchorable bubbles to have your target land inside the second bubble seems like something that shouldn't be possible. Can be highly inconvenient even when it isn't manned, and takes away what would normally be a player's role (sitting on the edge of the bubble in a hic/dic). I like the idea of having anchorable bubbles expire after a period of time though.
The Economist Logically Consistent 36	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:52:59 - [34] - Quote Please no.
Capqu Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1201	Posted - 2016.07.01 12:56:45 - [35] - Quote put it back to being infinite on destination grid the current issue is because of having an arbitrary limit. this means you can anchor a small bubble @999km and a large bubble at 1001km and whoever warps to the destination point will land in the very centre of a large bubble, on the edge of the small bubble, and require burning over 30km to escape this previously was never the case as before the citadel release the furthest you could land inside a bubble was 2.5km, without grid fuckery (which, you could still burn off the grid from if you knew what was happening) also just remove ess from the game, they serve no purpose other than gay traps and completely missed their intended implementation of being a lucrative target for people hunting ratters or for forcing small-scale skirmishes because they are always put in a dangerous place for the attacking party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Raging Beaver Bat Country Pandemic Legion 49	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:00:08 - [36] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: giving anchored bubbles a duration of a couple of hours would be good, and would be much easier than thinking up a clever way to stop people spamming 100 of them Sounds good. Make the anchorable bubbles cheaper and smaller but one-time use only.
Lithium Nightmare Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:01:46 - [37] - Quote i cant believe the cry babys win again, first CCP makes carriers shitz again, now nerf the bubbles. why? because nerds warping at 0 to a gate in Null space and wonder why they get dragged to a citadel and lose their ibis with 20 skill injektors. and the go cry on reddit and forums about it. ***** hilarius we get more and more limitation, and thats **.
Archetype 66 Shiva Northern Coalition. 194	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:04:46 - [38] - Quote Cool One thing still need clarification: what is considered inline ? What approximation of angle is tolerated ? 1degre, 2, 3 ? Or is it that the virtual line between your startpoint and endpoint have to "hit" the buble, even at the edge. Or pass close to it. Thx for your answer. I'm wondering since 2008..
Primary This Rifter SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1199	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:06:31 - [39] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. I'm pretty sure this just means that you'll be pulled to the edge of the large bubble since it's closer than 500 km. The location of the anchored mobile warp disruptor isn't what's used to determine pulling/stopping, the field edge is. Am I wrong? Is everyone just assuming that getting pulled inside the large bubble is what would definitely happen?
Elenahina agony unleashed Agony Empire 940	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:07:25 - [40] - Quote Seems like a fair and balanced change CCP. Ship it. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1500	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:13:41 - [41] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) are you saying this is fine, or are you saying you'll fix this some other time? it's not fine btw, it's really awful Why? Should warping to direct gate to gate unscouted not be punished? getting dragged off by a bubble is being punished. getting dragged into the centre of 50 bubbles is just ridiculous, and I think an unintended thing with the grid changes You'll still only ever have like a (I can't remember T2 large radius exactly right now) 30km burn max with this proposal.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34069	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:18:06 - [42] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Nevermind. people are mistaken. you land inside a bubble like this Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Je'sus Quintana Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:28:46 - [43] - Quote Yes, this would be a good change.
Madden Canrende The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 22	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:31:53 - [44] - Quote Great idea, can't wait to see it implemented Member of the #TweetFleet @Madden_Canrende
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1238	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:39:17 - [45] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You'll still only ever have like a (I can't remember T2 large radius exactly right now) 30km burn max with this proposal. nope, you put a stop bubble that lands you 500km short of the gate and surround it with more bubbles
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1187	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:39:23 - [46] - Quote yes, please more rubberband fixes bubble drag range isnt a problem, citadels on gate grids are.
ApolloF117 HUN Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels 49	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:41:46 - [47] - Quote Lithium Nightmare wrote: i cant believe the cry babys win again, first CCP makes carriers shitz again, now nerf the bubbles. why? because nerds warping at 0 to a gate in Null space and wonder why they get dragged to a citadel and lose their ibis with 20 skill injektors. and the go cry on reddit and forums about it. ***** hilarius we get more and more limitation, and thats **. welcome in the sandbox, what is not a sandbox anymore
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1501	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:44:48 - [48] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You'll still only ever have like a (I can't remember T2 large radius exactly right now) 30km burn max with this proposal. nope, you put a stop bubble that lands you 500km short of the gate and surround it with more bubbles Which is still limited to a few dozen km at worst. As soon as you would hit a bubble that is closer than the 500km you'd stop anyway so there's a finite amount you can layer towards the (presumed) gate. Unless I'm missing something.
Kynric Sky Fighters 380	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:47:18 - [49] - Quote While you are at it, why not change bubbles to a one time use 2 hour duration structure that gives a kill mail. The long term nature of bubbles leads to over use.
Primary This Rifter SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1201	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:47:30 - [50] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Nevermind. people are mistaken. you land inside a bubble like this That would be me who was mistaken.

TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1242	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:53:10 - [51] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You'll still only ever have like a (I can't remember T2 large radius exactly right now) 30km burn max with this proposal. nope, you put a stop bubble that lands you 500km short of the gate and surround it with more bubbles Which is still limited to a few dozen km at worst. As soon as you would hit a bubble that is closer than the 500km you'd stop anyway so there's a finite amount you can layer towards the (presumed) gate. Unless I'm missing something. I think you are missing something. if I put a gigantic blob of stop bubbles centred 1000km (or 500 after the change) short of the gate, you will land right in the middle, because the ones further than that 1000/500 range can't drag you
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1504	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:01:08 - [52] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You'll still only ever have like a (I can't remember T2 large radius exactly right now) 30km burn max with this proposal. nope, you put a stop bubble that lands you 500km short of the gate and surround it with more bubbles Which is still limited to a few dozen km at worst. As soon as you would hit a bubble that is closer than the 500km you'd stop anyway so there's a finite amount you can layer towards the (presumed) gate. Unless I'm missing something. I think you are missing something. if I put a gigantic blob of stop bubbles centred 1000km (or 500 after the change) short of the gate, you will land right in the middle, because the ones further than that 1000/500 range can't drag you Yeah I was. I first played the mechanic out in my head as drags. Stops are a totally different beast and yes, this is 100% completely and hilariously broken.
Hayze Cloud The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:16:04 - [53] - Quote +1 for this change.
Calypso K'Tana SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:23:24 - [54] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: yes, please more rubberband fixes bubble drag range isnt a problem, citadels on gate grids are. This..... Nuff Said.
Zacktar SHUN THE NON BELIEVER 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:25:33 - [55] - Quote I think dragging or stopping a warp should be completely removed. It is very risk averse for bubble campers to partake of this cowardly act. Anything landing that may be a threat to them allows them to simply not engage or overwhelm. Fish in a barrel thing. My opinion is to not allow bubbles to affect already in warp ships at all.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 411	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:30:27 - [56] - Quote Arizan Holosalintan wrote: I disagree Currently there are interdiction nullified ships present in the game, allowing for the avoidance of Citadel drag bubbles. Travel ceptors are unlockable and should be used to scout your routes. If you're travelling a route you haven't scouted, it should the defender. Grids are currently 8'000km. Grids of this size would be not be fully utilized if we're only going to use 500km. Warp disruption bubbles and drag bubbling allow for grid manipulation and control. The ability to change the terrain and manipulate it allows for interesting scenarios to develop based upon point of origin and setup. Bubble camping a gate with a citadel only puts you in range of the PDS systems, as such small things (if you haven't scouted your) you'll be affected. If you have scouted your route, why are you warping gate to gate? Shouldn't you bounce from a moon, planet or anomaly to avoid bubble? If you're bigger, haven't scouted, and land in the bubble depending on the ship you have you'll land in a warp bubble as normal and suffer the consequences. Citadel camping, i.e being on a citadel with carriers and attacking people on the gate bubbles won't be fixed by this. Being in a Citadel camping with the PDS smart bombs won't save you from a manned gate camp. So in brief this change is an attempt to protect travel from manned gate camps. Which it won't prevent because apparently the smart bombs on citadels are too OP (which they aren't) on account of people traveling through space without scouting (which they shouldn't). Does that about cover it? Agree with everything here. The advantage given here by the citadel is one that affects only those who do not or will not scout their gate and provide proper tactical warp/travel for themselves or their fleet. It requires someone to risk/anchor a 20B ISK structure and man it. It can be circumvented both by proper scouting and by simply shooting the bubble from outside the range of the PDS thereby eliminating the camp. Your single invulnerable gunner now has no targets. Feel free to shoot him when he flys out again to anchor another one. People owning space should be able to put down a giant "this is my land, come shoot me" structure to restrict free, and fundamentally lazy, travel. It is easily avoided and circumvented. I don't see the issue being one that requires a mechanics change that could, and has already been shown in the thread, to have some additional undesirable effects.
Kuda Timberline Alea Iacta Est Universal Blades of Grass 9	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:37:53 - [57] - Quote I like this change! ...but how about we just remove bubbles and make AOE points instead? Muhaha! Kuda Timberline Co-host Capstable Podcast
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1504	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:38:02 - [58] - Quote Obil Que wrote: People owning space should be able to put down a giant "this is my land, come shoot me" structure Well.....I can't shoot it 96.5% of the time because it is invulnerable.
Ilian Amarin Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:45:58 - [59] - Quote I dissagree. I dont see any reason to make the game easier for people who are too stupid to use a scouting inty or bounce of celestials.
Hatshepsut IV Un.Reasonable 403	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:47:35 - [60] - Quote NO, please for the love of bob no. The deleterious effect this will have on w-space meta would be crushing. A large degree of w-space pvp revolves around catching/forcing people out of jump range of a hole. Just off the top of my head things that would either no longer be possible or just not useful tactics anymore. Hole control/Eviction style massing of holes. The entire concept of an eviction in w-space generally revolves around denying the opposing party all access and chance to use wormholes via keeping them crit and bubbles up to not allow them to roll/close them. (side note/ this will make holes with direct high sec connections basically impossible to evict) Fire walling via dictor bubbles to prevent reinforcements/capitals from landing in optimal combat range is one of the more effective tactics a smaller well organized force has fight/gank a larger group. Removal of drag bubbles past 500km ensures such fights are just a n+1 affair. Bubble camping W-space/highsec holes to catch people who don't scout. The entire activity becomes pointless if they can just warp blindly to the hole and still land at zero. The net result of this change from the perspective of a longtime wormholer and w-space CEO will be less killmails/less chance for interaction with people via pvp and a generally less risk environment #CCPleasesavethebubble! Public Channel \| Un.Welcome

Mimiko Severovski Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 55	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:47:57 - [61] - Quote lol good solution ccp warpinsteadofalign
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 252	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:51:45 - [62] - Quote Please god no. Why nerf bubbles just because null seccers are too lazy to use pings in unscouted and unfamiliar systems? Stop nerfing gameplay to reward the lazy.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1245	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:54:12 - [63] - Quote gatecamper calls roaming solo pvpers lazy
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 542	Posted - 2016.07.01 14:55:27 - [64] - Quote Against. Alot of wormholes have bubble traps around their POSs/Citadels designed to trap people who warp to moons. Im assuming this change would ruin that. Alot of people have a great deal of enjoyment from catching scouts as they get stuck on the bubble trap and destroyed by the guns or a waiting sabre/interceptor. Please dont just balance the game for nullsec. "...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave." \| zoonr-Korsairs \| Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" \| Rafeau \|
Vic Jefferson Stimulus Rote Kapelle 1048	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:05:19 - [65] - Quote Good change. it's not even that people minded occasionally minded the combination of: A)Not having a tactical B)Not having a nearby celestial to dscan the gate before warping to it C)Not having an inty in the gang. ...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like. Also you should make gate rats shoot bubbles already. It's dumb they just remain forever. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Hatshepsut IV Un.Reasonable 404	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:10:36 - [66] - Quote Kynric wrote: While you are at it, why not change bubbles to a one time use 2 hour duration structure that gives a kill mail. The long term nature of bubbles leads to over use. If you absolutely HAVE to do something do this. Leave dictor/hictor bubbles unchanged and make the AFK deploy and go bubbles last a short time and then unanchor or explode. Public Channel \| Un.Welcome
Thomas Gargol Order Collective Blades of Grass 3	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:10:37 - [67] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. Seeing as we don't generally care about bubblefucked gates you jump into, I doubt this is a problem. Except you can burn to the gate and jump back, you can hardly do that in that scenario.
Cyphodias League of Non-Aligned Worlds Snuffed Out 4	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:13:39 - [68] - Quote ****** idea not even going to start why this is stupid. if you dont want citadels to ** up gates, ban them from gates, not ruin one very good nullsec mechanic.
Kismeteer Bat Country Pandemic Legion 885	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:19:23 - [69] - Quote Unlimited bubble effect was great when grids were maxed at 500km. Now, with putting citadels at the end of that bubble path, it is way OP. I support this change.
Vendettus Bikini Bottom Ultras League of Unaligned Master Pilots 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:23:06 - [70] - Quote Good change, fixes the citadel on gates issue, its ridiculous to have an invincible structure sitting at a gate and beeing able to kill stuff. Also fix the ESS<>Citadel issue please.

Mai Hantaka Dangerous Dutch Carebears Apocalypse Now. 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:25:50 - [71] - Quote Excellent idea, and while you are at it, make mobile bubbles decay after 3 days.
Ambien Dmalum DJ Leadboy's Retirement Fund Interstellar Krabbing Enforcement Agency 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:37:44 - [72] - Quote I think you're changing game mechanics because people have become lazy and think its safe to warp gate to gate in null. When did this game stop being a sandbox?
Vendettus Bikini Bottom Ultras League of Unaligned Master Pilots 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:50:54 - [73] - Quote Ambien Dmalum wrote: I think you're changing game mechanics because people have become lazy and think its safe to warp gate to gate in null. When did this game stop being a sandbox? It didnt stop beeing a sandbox, the amount of people beeing massive retards is just way to high thats all there is to it. there was not even once a point in eve where an (mostly)INVINCIBLE!!!! structure would guard a gate while beeing player built/controlled. nothing to do with beeing lazy or not scouting. this is on a level with how skynet used to be ... just even less risk involved. also tell that the solo pvp player ... if i warp into a gate camp i can just kill it, if i warp into a bubbled citadel i cant even shoot back.
Chewytowel Haklar KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 216	Posted - 2016.07.01 15:54:21 - [74] - Quote Can someone explain for stupid people that don't speak EVE what this means? Does this mean that no matter how I bounce off a celestial I can get stuck inside a large bubble up to 500km from a gate? Or does this mean that as long as I don't warp gate to gate I no longer would be stuck if I wasn't in an inty and the gate itself wasn't bubble ******? Really confused here. I mean what was the warp disrupt max range before? Ugh...
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 254	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:00:00 - [75] - Quote Vendettus wrote: there was not even once a point in eve where an (mostly)INVINCIBLE!!!! structure would guard a gate while beeing player built/controlled. nothing to do with beeing lazy or not scouting. this is on a level with how skynet used to be ... just even less risk involved. also tell that the solo pvp player ... if i warp into a gate camp i can just kill it, if i warp into a bubbled citadel i cant even shoot back. Then fix citadels so that they can't be on grid with a gate. Don't universally nerf bubbles because of a citadel problem.
nezroy Nice Clan 23	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:04:28 - [76] - Quote Capqu wrote: also just remove ess from the game, they serve no purpose other than gay traps What's a gay trap? Why would an ESS only trap gay pilots? That makes no sense. I'm assuming, of course, that you aren't so crass as to be conflating gay with lame or inferior piloting qualities, so you can understand why this sentence is confusing as ****.
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 174	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:13:51 - [77] - Quote Not a bad idea in principle. I'd ask that you leave dic and hic bubbles out of this. Also, please add a 24-48 hr decay timer to anchored bubbles. The constant-uber-bubbled gates in Russian space are stupid.
Hatshepsut IV Un.Reasonable 405	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:21:39 - [78] - Quote Just for clarification sake since myself and others seem to be interpreting this several ways. Is this change making it so only warps made within 500km of bubbles will effect you OR is this making it so all bubbles in line with desto work provided they are not greater then 500km? Public Channel \| Un.Welcome
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 910	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:23:15 - [79] - Quote Surely you meant to say "warp bubble edges" within 500km of the out-of-warp point...? Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Phuuk Blasphemy LLC 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:25:41 - [80] - Quote No reason to change drag mechanics but instead do one of the following: 1. Can't drop a citadel on grid of a gate. or 2. Can't drop bubbles within 500 of a citadel.

Virtuozone Out of Focus Odin's Call 35	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:26:07 - [81] - Quote Arizan Holosalintan wrote: I disagree Currently there are interdiction nullified ships present in the game, allowing for the avoidance of Citadel drag bubbles. Travel ceptors are unlockable and should be used to scout your routes. If you're travelling a route you haven't scouted, it should the defender. Grids are currently 8'000km. Grids of this size would be not be fully utilized if we're only going to use 500km. Warp disruption bubbles and drag bubbling allow for grid manipulation and control. The ability to change the terrain and manipulate it allows for interesting scenarios to develop based upon point of origin and setup. Bubble camping a gate with a citadel only puts you in range of the PDS systems, as such small things (if you haven't scouted your) you'll be affected. If you have scouted your route, why are you warping gate to gate? Shouldn't you bounce from a moon, planet or anomaly to avoid bubble? If you're bigger, haven't scouted, and land in the bubble depending on the ship you have you'll land in a warp bubble as normal and suffer the consequences. Citadel camping, i.e being on a citadel with carriers and attacking people on the gate bubbles won't be fixed by this. Being in a Citadel camping with the PDS smart bombs won't save you from a manned gate camp. So in brief this change is an attempt to protect travel from manned gate camps. Which it won't prevent because apparently the smart bombs on citadels are too OP (which they aren't) on account of people traveling through space without scouting (which they shouldn't). Does that about cover it? Somebody doesn't do any solo pvp huh?
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 18	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:37:45 - [82] - Quote I would prefer unlimited drag and stop range and bubbles being able to pull you out of warp. But most importantly a DECAY TIMER.
Smokes McPot Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:41:31 - [83] - Quote I have said this before, and I think it's a really simple change that would fix the issue of mobile bubbles. Simply allow enemies to unanchor and steal undefended bubbles. If carebears want to put 100 bubbles on their gates so they can rat, fine, but that should mean that my gang can unanchor them all and steal them. That would actually introduce some risk/reward into the equation. There is nothing more bullshit than mass large bubbles on gates that lag out my computer and that can't be realistically destroyed in a reasonable amount of time.
iHades Kundalinis National Protection And Security 1	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:42:55 - [84] - Quote If you need to change something is timer on the anchored bubbles But first fix the 10000000 stupid bugs that already exist and give a look on the petitions. The docking undocking right now is show stupid making people not want to log in the game . > *need more nightmares*
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 414	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:43:47 - [85] - Quote Virtuozone wrote: Arizan Holosalintan wrote: I disagree Currently there are interdiction nullified ships present in the game, allowing for the avoidance of Citadel drag bubbles. Travel ceptors are unlockable and should be used to scout your routes. If you're travelling a route you haven't scouted, it should the defender. Grids are currently 8'000km. Grids of this size would be not be fully utilized if we're only going to use 500km. Warp disruption bubbles and drag bubbling allow for grid manipulation and control. The ability to change the terrain and manipulate it allows for interesting scenarios to develop based upon point of origin and setup. Bubble camping a gate with a citadel only puts you in range of the PDS systems, as such small things (if you haven't scouted your) you'll be affected. If you have scouted your route, why are you warping gate to gate? Shouldn't you bounce from a moon, planet or anomaly to avoid bubble? If you're bigger, haven't scouted, and land in the bubble depending on the ship you have you'll land in a warp bubble as normal and suffer the consequences. Citadel camping, i.e being on a citadel with carriers and attacking people on the gate bubbles won't be fixed by this. Being in a Citadel camping with the PDS smart bombs won't save you from a manned gate camp. So in brief this change is an attempt to protect travel from manned gate camps. Which it won't prevent because apparently the smart bombs on citadels are too OP (which they aren't) on account of people traveling through space without scouting (which they shouldn't). Does that about cover it? Somebody doesn't do any solo pvp huh? Are solo pvp'er incabable of creating tactical bookmarks, using non-direct gate to gate travel, or shooting the offending bubble outside the range of the PDS?
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2611	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:44:19 - [86] - Quote Now we just need to make it so that anchored bubbles generate kill mails for those who blow them up. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 7153	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:49:34 - [87] - Quote Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Koz Katral Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 148	Posted - 2016.07.01 16:52:20 - [88] - Quote This will have a negative impact on screen bubbles in fleet fights (rendering them useless) which removes a cool tactical feature from the game at the same time as massively buffing stealth bombers. I would suggest that if you do enact this change then you make it only apply to anchored bubbles rather than disruption probes or hictor bubbles, this would preserve the screen bubble mechanic. I'm sure you know what a screen bubble is, but in case you don't they have two main on uses. A screen bubble is usually dropped by an interdictor to protect a friendly fleet (usually snipers) from other hostile fleets on the same grid, intersecting the warp path of the hostile fleet if they are more than 150km away from your allies. This will often lead to an enemy FC fleet warping multiple times across a grid to reposition as the other fleets dictor pilots scramble to reposition each time and try to cut him off. I think this is cool and adds depth to fleet fights. They are also used to protect a fleet from bombers. A fleet can hictor bubble themselves, or even overlap bubbles of different diameters on themselves, creating a radius within which hostile bombers will be pulled in and unable to escape if they try to attempt an on grid bombing run. This allows the defending fleet a chance to destroy the bombers before they escape with specialist anti bomber ships incorporated into the fleet doctrine, increasing their survivability against incoming bombs. This strategy obviously involves risk because it essentially traps your own fleet on grid, but its a viable and often used tactic and creates options for fleets who want to use heavily tanked battleship doctrines and fully commit to grid without the fear of being wombo ombo'd by huge waves of (still) overpowered low sp frigates.
Ferrotsmite Anzomi Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. The-Culture 18	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:24:10 - [89] - Quote Hatshepsut IV wrote: NO, please for the love of bob no. The deleterious effect this will have on w-space meta would be crushing. A large degree of w-space pvp revolves around catching/forcing people out of jump range of a hole. Just off the top of my head things that would either no longer be possible or just not useful tactics anymore. Hole control/Eviction style massing of holes. The entire concept of an eviction in w-space generally revolves around denying the opposing party all access and chance to use wormholes via keeping them crit and bubbles up to not allow them to roll/close them. (side note/ this will make holes with direct high sec connections basically impossible to evict) Fire walling via dictor bubbles to prevent reinforcements/capitals from landing in optimal combat range is one of the more effective tactics a smaller well organized force has fight/gank a larger group. Removal of drag bubbles past 500km ensures such fights are just a n+1 affair. Bubble camping W-space/highsec holes to catch people who don't scout. The entire activity becomes pointless if they can just warp blindly to the hole and still land at zero. Placing drag bubbles between pos/citadels/holes to catch people useing as a pipeline. The net result of this change from the perspective of a longtime wormholer and w-space CEO will be less killmails/less chance for interaction with people via pvp and a generally less risk environment #CCPleasesavethebubble! What are you talking about? The ability to pull people more than 500km off of grid with a warp bubble is like 6 months old. I don't think any of the things you listed above is going to be effected by this change. Even if it will be, it will only be reverted back to they way you have been doing it for the majority of your wormhole life. #MountainsOutOfMolehills
borodimer Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:26:54 - [90] - Quote Yes, please!

FistyMcBumBardier New Caldari Bureau of Investigation 125	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:38:01 - [91] - Quote This is a good change, not just for Caldari combat pilots, but for everyone of New Eden.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2810	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:45:20 - [92] - Quote I'd leave it be. Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while). As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing. Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with. Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Akballah Kassan Flames Of Chaos 101	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:46:44 - [93] - Quote DO IT! Being able to gate camp with a citadel is beyond stupid.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2421	Posted - 2016.07.01 17:49:39 - [94] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: I'd leave it be. Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while). As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing. Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with. Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all. Eh, you'll have a good five weeks or so for the dozen? More? fortizars your coalition built in nullsec for the express purpose of serving as Point Defense drags to farm killmails. I think you'll get your money's worth. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Absocold Origin. White Legion. 12	Posted - 2016.07.01 18:26:39 - [95] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: yes, please more rubberband fixes bubble drag range isnt a problem, citadels on gate grids are. This.
Yuri Serafim Catastrophic Overview Failure COF Alliance 1	Posted - 2016.07.01 18:55:05 - [96] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: No, and i hate bubbles Eve is sandbox - players in nullsec should be allowed to do as they like. Don't take or nerf tools we have. Citadel camping is only possible if person warp directly between the gates. If they use bookmark, any celestial they will not fall into the citadel trap. You stated few times, people can only have citadels, if they control some area of the space, if this is my space i should be allowed to do as i like. If someone is afraid of bubbles - they can use nullified ships. THIS GUY GETS IT Also, this change would make it impossible to put catch bubbles outside the lock range of POSes to catch people warping from a very specific direction. But really, it's not that hard - just bounce celestials.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 98	Posted - 2016.07.01 19:19:51 - [97] - Quote DO EET NAOW
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 320	Posted - 2016.07.01 19:40:54 - [98] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. Wait a minute. What is the problem again? If it's the lack of information on bubble mechanics - then yes, I can agree, more clarifications would help. If it's citadel camping - then no, I dont see it as a problem. Could you explain why it is? If anything, I'd say interceptor bubble immunity is much worse of a problem for this area of gameplay which is gate camping.
Max Groote Aliastra Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2016.07.01 19:51:34 - [99] - Quote This is a really reasonable change and it makes a lot of sense. The people saying "don't warp gate to gate" don't realise that a gate camp can actually be dealt with by a small group of players, while a citadel cannot. The "don't nerf tools we have" argument doesn't make much sense either, because we would still have the no-risk Intel source that was the watchlist by that logic.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 19:57:36 - [100] - Quote Querns wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: I'd leave it be. Eve is all about emergent game play right, these bubbles and citadels are something none of us saw coming, its allowed the owners of space to recraft that space into a fortress (something sov owners have wanted for a while). As somebody who roams, often alone, I think its nice that the ratters finally have a noticeable defense against roaming gangs and the new ability to redraw the defefnses of your space that players came up with (not CCP) is pretty amazing. Too often lately the players come up with something and CCP is quick to clamp down on it and remove it from game or remove whatever cool idea the players came up with. Let it run for a while as is, its honestly not hurting anything at all. Eh, you'll have a good five weeks or so for the dozen? More? fortizars your coalition built in nullsec for the express purpose of serving as Point Defense drags to farm killmails. I think you'll get your money's worth. Grr PL? I'd like to see a bit more compelling argument. So for the sake of it, could you explain exactly how is "citadel camping" detrimental and why?

Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:01:26 - [101] - Quote Max Groote wrote: This is a really reasonable change and it makes a lot of sense. The people saying "don't warp gate to gate" don't realise that a gate camp can actually be dealt with by a small group of players, while a citadel cannot. The "don't nerf tools we have" argument doesn't make much sense either, because we would still have the no-risk Intel source that was the watchlist by that logic. A competent gate camp would not let you through unless you're in travel-ceptor. While "citadel camp" is trivial to avoid. Obil Que wrote: Are solo pvp'er incabable of creating tactical bookmarks, using non-direct gate to gate travel, or shooting the offending bubble outside the range of the PDS? I guess they are too leet for that bullcrap.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 293	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:20:47 - [102] - Quote I would agree to anchored bubbles, but leave a hic with unlimited range. something is actually at risk then
Miss Everest Elysium Accord 5	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:22:42 - [103] - Quote There is nothing wrong with this tactic as stated previously. Dont do it. You will just lessen the game and help the carebears who dont know how to use simple tactics to avoid a IMMOVABLE object. That and or they lost a blingy and are crying about it. Either way its sad. But seriously, use a ceptor, cloak, bouce off another object, or use a tac like everyone else. It isnt hard!
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 293	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:23:41 - [104] - Quote Are we getting the updated GFX changes to anchored bubbles with this change?
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:24:29 - [105] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: ...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like. Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss!
Cade Windstalker 467	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:44:20 - [106] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: ...it's that there was not way for a small roaming gang to deal with them. I never minded when sov-holders dropped a bajillion supers on me - that was fine they put toys on the field and made plays. It's the fact that the use of citadels has absolutely zero risk against a small roaming gang - this characteristically un-eve like. Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss! EDIT. I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels? This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7. Simply removing the ability for Citadels to camp Stargates with bubbles fixes the major issue with Citadel guns, and avoids all of these issues.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 259	Posted - 2016.07.01 20:58:06 - [107] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Alright, I see it as a fair point. Now, if we agree that this is a real problem, we could elaborate some solution. For example: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes. Discuss! EDIT. I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels? Why not just make it so that citadels can't be anchored on grid with gates? Fix citadels, not bubbles which have worked fine for years
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:04:40 - [108] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: I mean, we have an engagement mechanics for ships, which includes 1-minute weapon timer. Why shouldnt similar mechanics be in place for citadels? This removes the defensive and "home field advantage" aspect of Citadels and opens them up massively to trolling, incompetence, and generally defeating of the whole "vulnerability timers" mechanic that's supposed to allow players to be around to defend their expensive stuff without needing to have tons of people online 23/7. Absolutely not. If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS). If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment.
Melanoq No Clams 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:13:09 - [109] - Quote I support this change wholeheartedly
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 259	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:39:57 - [110] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels. Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate?

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1510	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:48:37 - [111] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels. Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate? Cloaky dictor? /devilsadvocate
Nadarob Skillane Bridge not Jump Short Bus Syndicate 2	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:48:54 - [112] - Quote Im sorry, but this idea is total bullshit. You had a feature in game. People adapted and used that feature, and now you are going to break it because some people whined like 12 year old girls about it. Bubble wall citadels are probably the easiest type of camp to bypass. ONE ping negates the entire thing and the citadel cannot counter it, Also, there are relatively few systems in which this type of citadel actually works. The system has to be arranged in such a way that the citadel bubbles can catch every celestial at a single wall. Even in those systems where it DOES work, it generally only works on one of the gates. Before people start bitching at me: Yes. I DO have a citadel set up like that. Yes, I AM the guy that set up the one that Asher bitched about in Reddit. If you are in nullsec on a roam and you dont have a ceptor burning ahead of you to get pings when needed, then you are doing it totally wrong. A single ceptor burning a ping totally negates the effect of a Citadel bubble wall in about the 30 seconds it takes to make a ping.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 21:56:46 - [113] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? Funny how your fix for citadels doesn't change them at all, but instead changes a part of the game that's used far beyond citadels. Why should a space ship that's invulnerable 90% of the time be able to be on grid with a gate? Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested.
Nadarob Skillane Bridge not Jump Short Bus Syndicate 3	Posted - 2016.07.01 22:02:38 - [114] - Quote Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested.[/quote] So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ?
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 321	Posted - 2016.07.01 22:06:04 - [115] - Quote Like this: Skia Aumer wrote: if citadel uses its weapons, it becomes vulnerable for 15 minutes.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 261	Posted - 2016.07.01 22:51:25 - [116] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested. My point since post #1 in this thread has been to get citadels off gates. Don't respond to me with your own agenda when I never responded to you, mate. Get citadels off gate grids. Gates are a great place for small gang fights, making a citadel on a gate vulnerable means exactly nothing to a small gang. What do you think, small gang roams have 7 day siege plans for citadels when roaming?
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 136	Posted - 2016.07.01 22:52:41 - [117] - Quote Nadarob Skillane wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: Dude, can you even read? If citadel is agressed -> then it becomes vulnerable. That's what I have suggested. So.... HOW exactly do you intend to agress an invulnerable citadel in order to make in vulnerable... ? If nobody is there to man the guns the citadel poses no threat to you, it's just another drag bubble you should have avoided by burning yourself a ping or warping to a celestial in the first place while traveling through null. But you tell me, why should you be able to make an unmanned, invulnerable citadel vulnerable? What would be the purpose of the invulnerability at all if you can force such a thing? I see no problem with a citadel being used offensively outside of it's vulnerability timer becoming temporarily vulnerable. I'd honestly give it the same 1 minute weapons timer any player gets, the same one used to prevent tethering. As far as the bubble changes go it's just simply a bad idea. And the idea of adding timers or allowing hostile entities to scoop someone else's bubbles are even worse. Literally ideas out of the mouths of those too lazy to realize they are in null and should know the proper ways to travel through hostile space does not include simply warping gate to gate. And for you solo roamers. I have one thing to say to you. Get good. Travel the paths you wish to travel ahead of time in a ceptor if you must. It's always good to familiarize yourself with the lay of the land and set up pings where needed ahead of time. You'll find you'll catch more people off-guard if you appear in their system faster because you had previously set up a ping to bypass their drag bubbles. Or knew ahead of time to come in a nullified cyno ship to bypass their complete bubblefucking of a gate with friends on standby to jump in (that being outside of solo-roam category but you get what I'm saying I hope) . Moral of that story is if you want your kills, do your due diligence and come prepared to hostile space! If you want to do off the cuff roams, don't complain when you get caught and killed by the locals and demand changes to support such a lazy playstyle. EDIT- fixed the messed up quote I quoted.
Cade Windstalker 468	Posted - 2016.07.01 23:11:12 - [118] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: Absolutely not. If you're AFK you cannot activate weapons and your citadel remains invulnerable. Citadel does not auto-agress, unlike starbase (POS). If you chose to activate weapons means you are ingame and active and it would only be fair that your citadel can be attacked at this moment. I know they don't auto-aggress, if they did I would say this was just a flat terrible idea and you may as well remove the vulnerability timers entirely. Instead you're creating a situation where you have to strictly manage who can and can't gun your Citadels because they're now, effectively, giant gank bait that can't dock up. I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk. Skia Aumer wrote: Fixing citadels is exactly what I'm talking about. But why do you want them to be removed from gates? I don't, I never said anything of the sort, I think they serve a very useful purpose on gates, but I'm not really sure being a one-man camp is particularly useful or beneficial to the game. I'm all for them being support on Gates, and being able to assist in engagements on them if used properly, but the current one-man-gank-squad does seem to have gotten a bit out of hand.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 136	Posted - 2016.07.01 23:19:07 - [119] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk. I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam cough
Cade Windstalker 468	Posted - 2016.07.01 23:39:26 - [120] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: I guarantee you the AU TZs would LOVE this, they can roam around until they find someone stupid enough to shoot bait and then reinforce their Citadel and maybe even kill it outright eventually, all because someone didn't restrict gunner roles enough, or someone was drunk. I see no problem with this. These roles should be stricktly monitored anyway, not handed out to every pleb flying under your flag. If a corp/alliance wants to do that, then that's on them. And lets face it, it wouldn't be the first time something of value was lost due to a late night drunk roam cough This sort of thing should make some amount of sense and encourage good gameplay though, this is just letting someone who doesn't know what they're doing screw their entire alliance with a role that, otherwise, had good reasons to be available to a large number of people, because the Citadel is worthless as a defense platform without it.

Ki Yaung Faithfully Executed Testing 0	Posted - 2016.07.01 23:58:57 - [121] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! You know the risk averse way, way outnumber the survivors of nullsec hell. I have a better idea for CCP: Make a video demonstrating what scouting is Demonstrate what it looks like to get caught in a citadel bubble trap Every time someone whines about bubbles, refer them to the video above Then those of us that understand risk, accept it, and counter it by playing smarter can carry on with our merry carebear-averse lives. If bubbles were a "thing" in high-sec, I'd say go for it in high-sec. But you're talking about something almost solely in nullsec where it should be spooky to even jump from gate to gate. I get it, though, a very sensitive group of people is having a rough go of it getting through certain space. They happen to be the loudest squeaky wheel. But this shouldn't be up for a vote. Leave it alone.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34078	Posted - 2016.07.02 00:10:21 - [122] - Quote For warp termination, can you fix the double bubble trick by checking for bubbles within 550 km (or so) but only apply the closest termination under 500km It makes me wince to see you boast about a bug as if it is a feature. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1646	Posted - 2016.07.02 00:44:42 - [123] - Quote Quote: 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. I have removed a rant. ISD Decoy Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Mostlyharmlesss GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 236	Posted - 2016.07.02 01:15:02 - [124] - Quote Band-aid fixes everyday! Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
Kikaali Kurvora A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum 3	Posted - 2016.07.02 01:30:49 - [125] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! How is it unclear? It is 1000km (well, more than likely it is 999 km, or somewhere in between those 2 figures, depending on rounding) Saying it is 'unclear' and coming up with a 500km hard cap is obfuscating the fact that you have decided to nerf citadels with bubbles pulling people out of warp. At least be honest and state your intention rather than using sophistry to give a 'reason' for a change
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2888	Posted - 2016.07.02 01:48:22 - [126] - Quote The emergence of Citadels on gates as you describe is a strong indication that people want MORE ways to secure their space and have more control over who enters their space, not less. Is it a design decision to make people feel like their sov is not their own? I do not understand the purpose of this proposed change. In addition, give us a way to stop nullified ships. Personally, I'd like to see anchored bubbles which are being entosed catch nullified ships. With wormholes and interceptors and T3s there is just no feasible way to lock down a constellation and force a fight at the entry. Please explain the design goals more clearly. At the moment, it feels like you are saying, "Please use these great new citadel tools! But only exactly as we tell you and obviously not for anything practically useful like trying to protect your space." Players are giving you a very clear message about what they want to be able to do with structures. I think you should listen. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34079	Posted - 2016.07.02 02:30:38 - [127] - Quote Players would rather keep their exploits? You don't say Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Nadarob Skillane Bridge not Jump Short Bus Syndicate 4	Posted - 2016.07.02 02:45:06 - [128] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Players would rather keep their exploits? You don't say How is it an exploit? Bubbles will catch you if they are placed less than 1000km from the gate. I spent quite a while finding out their exact range due to the grid size increase - took me dropping more than a few bubbles to get it exact. I then put up a citadel and used that game MECHANIC - not exploit - to set up a nice bubble trap by my citadel. I was one of the first, if not THE first to do the citadel bubble trap - I was certainly the first to expand it to encompass every celestial warpin to the gate. Please dont call it an exploit when its a game mechanic that is easily overcome by a single ceptor setting a ping for your Null Sec roam. Hell, you dont even NEED that. there is a person in Amarr or Jita selling bookmarks for most regions in null. Buy them and his bookmarks will avoid most citadel bubble traps. Just because you are too lazy to counteract the trap does not mean the trap itself is an exploit. By the way, the guy above you who posted is from PH. I have probably killed more PH in my citadel than all other corps combined. He isnt complaining, and quite often when I catch someone, their response in local generally a 'wow - nice trap' - apart from the few salty tears (usually from Goons)
Trajan Unknown Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 103	Posted - 2016.07.02 03:14:08 - [129] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! To me this is another change for the people who cry all day every day because they can-¦t warp straight to gates anymore. Sure, the grid changes with citadels and drag bubbles can be really nasty but than it-¦s the space of the people who are living in there, it should be nasty to pass through. I don-¦t like it at all and no, I am not sitting in a citadel or camping a gate at all. I simply like to feel "unsafe" when I fly through hostile space. It-¦s easy enough already with the local still available and easy to make bookmarks.
Temijin Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 1	Posted - 2016.07.02 04:59:38 - [130] - Quote Hate this! Nul is dangerous and eats the foolish. Scout...bounce off celestial so....travel in an Indy. Please stop reacting to whiners. They never stop as you should know very well by now CCP.

Ruby Gnollo 6	Posted - 2016.07.02 08:29:33 - [131] - Quote Since you asked on Twitter for comments, let's express some bitter comments I would have kept for myself if you hadn't. Since warp bubbles & disruptors are mostly for NS, whatever CCP may want to do for them isn't of great importance, since the vast majority of Eve just don't mess with NS. For such matters, you might just ask the Council of Null-Sec Management, where you'll find lots of people having lots of great ideas for these specific gameplays. And I'm not even joking : cause you know, when these guys are unhappy, they burn things (elsewhere). So please, just make them happier every day. But if you're seriously asking a question, here's mine : since nobody has any clue about what CCP's trying to achieve proposing these changes, how could anyone seriously answer ? In real life, changes proposals are motivated. Most of the time, after some evaluation period, metrics are made to see if the implemented changes had the expected effect. This is exactly what CCP did recently with daily quests : trying things for some reason, getting a few metrics, and heading back to check the results. But of course, there's prolly no reason to resort to such serious methods for marginal gameplays like Null Sec's.
Nortal Aldent TheLostSoul The Blood Covenant 4	Posted - 2016.07.02 09:08:17 - [132] - Quote I don't see why this is needed. From the responses here I'm not alone. What started this idea?
Ben Ishikela 77	Posted - 2016.07.02 09:46:52 - [133] - Quote 500km is an aweful change for reasons, that some already mentioned. There are other options: limited time on bubbles. dragging range depending on bubble. inaccuracy when dragging. ( d=0.0001 deviation on distance squared and 1000km dragged ---> 0.0001*1000^2=100km km off from normal spot in a random direction (yes, that means out of the bubble)....... on a 100km-drag thats just 1km.) A hic bubble generator on citadels so it has to be manned AND vulnerable for these games. Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Je'sus Quintana Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2016.07.02 11:25:43 - [134] - Quote People here are crying about breaking the sandbox. Well the space flight isnt actually a sandbox anyway, you need a celestial to warp from to avoid most bubbles, but in some systems there are no celestials to warp from. What i mean by that the space flight not being sandbox is that you need a target to warp to, you cant just warp into a random spot on the map. If we want to leave the bubbles as they are give us true free space flight without having to bookmark 20 safe spots in every system.
Hairpins Blueprint The Northerners Northern Coalition. 185	Posted - 2016.07.02 12:22:08 - [135] - Quote Holocauster was a bit too good to start with. Good change. Now just put 48H life on bubles like on MTU and all legit with bubbles : )
Anthar Thebess 1603	Posted - 2016.07.02 12:22:44 - [136] - Quote Je'sus Quintana wrote: People here are crying about breaking the sandbox. Well the space flight isnt actually a sandbox anyway, you need a celestial to warp from to avoid most bubbles, but in some systems there are no celestials to warp from. What i mean by that the space flight not being sandbox is that you need a target to warp to, you cant just warp into a random spot on the map. If we want to leave the bubbles as they are give us true free space flight without having to bookmark 20 safe spots in every system. Use standard trick , and make a warpin for youself. IF you don't have enough cap, ship will stop half way, Simply abuse some mechanic, to cap out yourself and make your own ping spot 1 AU near gate Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 358	Posted - 2016.07.02 13:17:29 - [137] - Quote What is wrong with it, is the same thing that's wrong with a lot of session changes and landing on/off grid related stuff: TARGET IS INVULNERABLE. There are similar situations, where for example you see a command destroyer break its cloak, spool up its jumpdrive and eventually sit 100km from you talking smack while you still haven't gotten the chance to lock the damn thing. Because :invulnerable:. Between instawarping ceptors, nullified T3s, small craft glitching a few seconds of invulnerability on their side, what we don't need is a colossal structure pipebombing you without a chance to shoot back. And I don't mean going out of our way to back back around 5 AM for the rest of the week-- I mean at the exact same time it's shooting at us! I like the idea. Bubbles were originally supposed to catch on-grid anyway, back when grids weren't thousands of km. Consider this a belated bugfix.
Minty Aroma Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2016.07.02 13:28:40 - [138] - Quote Raging Beaver wrote: Introducing a hard cap doesn't seem like a good solution (if anything, it seems a bit lazy). As I presume, the main objective of this change would be to get rid of the gatecamping Fortizars, maybe disallow anchoring bubbles within - say, 100km of the citadels? You'll want to bubble citadels when attacking though, to stop people from leaving or coming into the citadel, so that will put the attackers at a bit disadvantage just to fix a one sided exploit.
Zhele Jamohrr Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.07.02 14:47:44 - [139] - Quote Nortal Aldent wrote: I don't see why this is needed. From the responses here I'm not alone. What started this idea? People recently out of sov are unsurprisingly upset that it's now slightly riskier to travel in sov. Also unsurprisingly, I prefer current mechanics. @thread: To my knowledge, all the things which work to avoid bubble ganks work to avoid citadel ganks: proper scouting; warping to popular destinations from uncommon positions; jump drives; hardening up; staying in Empire space. Nerfing bubble pull range is also nerfing the now-increased importance of the fleet scout (which saddens me, since I enjoy that role). Citadels are such potent force multipliers that they increase the frequency with which one must employ the aforementioned tactics, and this is supposedly a problem. To my mind, this is a good thing. It's all the more reason to assemble spacefriends and divvy up roles and fight for valuable pipes (lowsec is still there for the more risk-averse of the lone wolves). It's good that sovereign space is now riskier to move through. Even as a frequent explorer of other groups' sov null (in non-immune covops, no less) I still prefer the current mechanics. It means I'm slightly less efficient at exploration but I nonetheless find it more engaging since I have to be a touch warier.
Ruby Gnollo 7	Posted - 2016.07.02 15:18:09 - [140] - Quote Zhele Jamohrr wrote: People recently out of sov are unsurprisingly upset that it's now slightly riskier to travel in sov. Also unsurprisingly, I prefer current mechanics. This perfecly sums it up : this change only matters for players factions at war for market shares. So, the player base just shouldn't care. CCP should just pursue its own interest and please manage the bulllies gangs they created adequately. But yet I wonder what's the point of the CNSM if not to handle players factions conflicts.

Ammzi Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1910	Posted - 2016.07.02 16:53:57 - [141] - Quote This is a bad change: 1. Circumventing citadel bubbles is incredibly trivial. For any roaming gang all they need is a ceptor to scout ahead (something most fleets already do) or a ping on the gate. 2. The citadel bubbles literally give a forewarning since they are announced system wide. If one is on your out-gate, you should probably consider warping to a ping or come from a random direction. This is unlike normal bubble camps which you won't know until you are in dscan range, something not all gates offer. 3. The citadels must be manned, if noone is in local you are probably safe to warp anywhere. This is catering to roaming gangs who want easy access to hostile space. I use citadels this way as well, but I also encounter them when roaming into e.g. Horde space where there many citadels on their gates. I don't complain when people have the homefield advantage, only if they use something OP. Drag-bubble citadels that can be countered by any ceptor or gate ping are not OP, they simply catch those with no foresight in checking their out gate before pressing warp in nullsec.
Blue Ice Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 12	Posted - 2016.07.02 22:18:55 - [142] - Quote Please don't implement this change, As well as what Ammzi said above, this change makes it impossible to anchor a bubble on a POS without it being in range of guns on the POS. Is this really what this change is intending to do?
Koenig Yazria Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 18	Posted - 2016.07.02 22:41:37 - [143] - Quote Ammzi wrote: This is a bad change: 1. Circumventing citadel bubbles is incredibly trivial. For any roaming gang all they need is a ceptor to scout ahead (something most fleets already do) or a ping on the gate. 2. The citadel bubbles literally give a forewarning since they are announced system wide. If one is on your out-gate, you should probably consider warping to a ping or come from a random direction. This is unlike normal bubble camps which you won't know until you are in dscan range, something not all gates offer. 3. The citadels must be manned, if noone is in local you are probably safe to warp anywhere. This is catering to roaming gangs who want easy access to hostile space. I use citadels this way as well, but I also encounter them when roaming into e.g. Horde space where there many citadels on their gates. I don't complain when people have the homefield advantage, only if they use something OP. Drag-bubble citadels that can be countered by any ceptor or gate ping are not OP, they simply catch those with no foresight in checking their out gate before pressing warp in nullsec. https://zkillboard.com/kill/54906382/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/54906342/ Nullified Tengu hunter warped past and failed to notice. But hey, gotta cater to the least capable because this is a thing nowadays.
Rezae Nagaken Evolved Diplomacy Zombie Ninja Space Bears 0	Posted - 2016.07.02 23:21:10 - [144] - Quote NO; DO NOT CHANGE BUBBLES!!!
Emrys Alf Seagull Fleet DRONE WALKERS 7	Posted - 2016.07.03 00:40:29 - [145] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Why? Where's the problem? Where are the protests? Who is abusing the 1000 limit and how? What difference does changing it to 500 make? Is this a needed thing or is this once again a favour for some invested party?
Noize Mex Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.07.03 03:26:45 - [146] - Quote I personally dont like the idea of that. its not really necessary in my opinion, just use pings. why wouldnt we do that? you should get punished if you warp to a gate on 0. i suppose the change is just because of citas? make citas anchor further from gates -.- If you are to lazy to warp to a ping instead of directly to a gate or dont even change the warpin-angle and dont see the cita on the gate beforehand you just deserve to be punished!
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 325	Posted - 2016.07.03 06:49:58 - [147] - Quote Nadarob Skillane wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Players would rather keep their exploits? You don't say How is it an exploit? Bubbles will catch you if they are placed less than 1000km from the gate. I spent quite a while finding out their exact range due to the grid size increase - took me dropping more than a few bubbles to get it exact. I then put up a citadel and used that game MECHANIC - not exploit - to set up a nice bubble trap by my citadel. I was one of the first, if not THE first to do the citadel bubble trap - I was certainly the first to expand it to encompass every celestial warpin to the gate. Please dont call it an exploit when its a game mechanic that is easily overcome by a single ceptor setting a ping for your Null Sec roam. To just point out the important bit here. Unless you a) already have a BM set up off the gate, b) have a ceptor in your fleet, or c) you yourself are flying something not actually looking to fight; i.e. travel ceptor, then you're going to die because you'll get caught by a wtfpwn citadel. How can anyone say this isn't a broken mechanic when the guy who apparently started it all also found a way to make every celestial get caught in the citadel trap is beyond me. God forbid you actually roam around yourself and fight targets as they come instead of just preying on the the unfortunate. TL:DR anything that causes less roaming should be changed, banned, fixed, or whatever you want to call it immediately. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 325	Posted - 2016.07.03 06:55:14 - [148] - Quote I would like to expand on this change and make it so the bubbles max pull range also is dynamic based on the size and variant of the bubble. i.e. small t1 bubbles can only anchor 100km off the gate ----> large faction bubbles can be anchored 500km off the gate (yes, they would mean revamping the syndicate bubbles to be better than the t2 versions). On top of this change, make it so the bubbles can be anchored a max 5 times (you don't always get the bubble in the right spot the first time heh). After the 5 times, the bubble pops. Also, add a shorter decay time so that they can't stay in space for a month. something around 1-2 days would be good, and it would be good for the markets too. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
KongGal Yjellio Circle-Of-Two 6	Posted - 2016.07.03 09:45:06 - [149] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Oh yeah go ahead!
Cyno In Jita Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.07.03 09:45:55 - [150] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Great idea! While we are at it, why not add a effect on ceptors that gives a penalty to align time while inside bubbles, they might be immune to bubbles warp disrupting effect but why not a penalty for the over protected warp core they now have.

Ammzi Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1914	Posted - 2016.07.03 11:19:02 - [151] - Quote Koenig Yazria wrote: Ammzi wrote: This is a bad change: 1. Circumventing citadel bubbles is incredibly trivial. For any roaming gang all they need is a ceptor to scout ahead (something most fleets already do) or a ping on the gate. 2. The citadel bubbles literally give a forewarning since they are announced system wide. If one is on your out-gate, you should probably consider warping to a ping or come from a random direction. This is unlike normal bubble camps which you won't know until you are in dscan range, something not all gates offer. 3. The citadels must be manned, if noone is in local you are probably safe to warp anywhere. This is catering to roaming gangs who want easy access to hostile space. I use citadels this way as well, but I also encounter them when roaming into e.g. Horde space where there many citadels on their gates. I don't complain when people have the homefield advantage, only if they use something OP. Drag-bubble citadels that can be countered by any ceptor or gate ping are not OP, they simply catch those with no foresight in checking their out gate before pressing warp in nullsec. https://zkillboard.com/kill/54906382/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/54906342/ Nullified Tengu hunter warped past and failed to notice. But hey, gotta cater to the least capable because this is a thing nowadays. Exactly, my point. If you don't do the minimum effort to secure yourself in nullsec - then why should you live? As of 3 minutes ago this interceptor burned a ping on the gate for his Viator alt/friend to circumvent the bubble: http://i.imgur.com/qpjUM8E.png It's really that easy.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1285	Posted - 2016.07.03 15:39:01 - [152] - Quote Temijin wrote: Hate this! Nul is dangerous and eats the foolish. Scout...bounce off celestial so....travel in an Indy. Please stop reacting to whiners. They never stop as you should know very well by now CCP. Translation: We are incredible terrible at pvp, so we need an instant-repair station to help us win a fight again 5 cruiser or destroyers with 300 people. Our super-tatic is press approach and FONE. Works only with instant-repair station, so the rest of our incredible team cna farm more isk into the game with titans and soopers all day. You must play EVE as we say you must. If you are tied into a wheelchair, go to work like everyone else and buy 23+ƒ358+ƒ250167946 accounts like we say you must do. Stop being poor. Only rich people should live on Earth since we love to collect currency, currency is good, much more currency is much more gooderererer. We - our incredible gank team - are only able to press approach and FONE, stop helping good pilots to escape our inescapable risk-free gank tarps. Risk free tarps good, not as good as currency but good. End translation. How about no? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1512	Posted - 2016.07.03 16:20:19 - [153] - Quote I'm sorry, you don't get to claim "elite pvp" whilst going gate to gate. They are mutually exclusive.
Lokar Griman APEX ARDENT COALITION Circle-Of-Two 15	Posted - 2016.07.03 17:17:12 - [154] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Then whats the point having cidatels then? Cidale is there for space defence. Every exepriance pilot knows not to warp to gate to gate, if thers bubble on dscan. Ccp should make less rules to the game, instead mkaing it easyer for the the mentaly disorded people.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 140	Posted - 2016.07.03 17:38:21 - [155] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Temijin wrote: Hate this! Nul is dangerous and eats the foolish. Scout...bounce off celestial so....travel in an Indy. Please stop reacting to whiners. They never stop as you should know very well by now CCP. Translation: We are incredible terrible at pvp, so we need an instant-repair station to help us win a fight again 5 cruiser or destroyers with 300 people. Our super-tatic is press approach and FONE. Works only with instant-repair station, so the rest of our incredible team cna farm more isk into the game with titans and soopers all day. You must play EVE as we say you must. If you are tied into a wheelchair, go to work like everyone else and buy 23+ƒ358+ƒ250167946 accounts like we say you must do. Stop being poor. Only rich people should live on Earth since we love to collect currency, currency is good, much more currency is much more gooderererer. We - our incredible gank team - are only able to press approach and FONE, stop helping good pilots to escape our inescapable risk-free gank tarps. Risk free tarps good, not as good as currency but good. End translation. How about no? You seem lost and quite upset my friend. Might I help point you in the direction of low and high security space where you don't have to face such dangers? Null defense is not about playing nice with small gang. We are here to crush you and keep you out of OUR space. If you wish to infiltrate and attack those within then you must work as a team. If that means bringing a ceptor/nullified t3 to burn pings then guess what that means you should do? I'll give you a hint, it's not cry to CCP to make that unnecessary.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1252	Posted - 2016.07.03 17:59:04 - [156] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: You seem lost and quite upset my friend. Might I help point you in the direction of low and high security space where you don't have to face such dangers? Null defense is not about playing nice with small gang. We are here to crush you and keep you out of OUR space. If you wish to infiltrate and attack those within then you must work as a team. If that means bringing a ceptor/nullified t3 to burn pings then guess what that means you should do? I'll give you a hint, it's not cry to CCP to make that unnecessary. you already had all this with just normal non-broken drag bubbles and no citadels. if this is what you need to defend your space, then I suggest actually you something something highsec
Lokar Griman APEX ARDENT COALITION Circle-Of-Two 16	Posted - 2016.07.03 19:13:02 - [157] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: You seem lost and quite upset my friend. Might I help point you in the direction of low and high security space where you don't have to face such dangers? Null defense is not about playing nice with small gang. We are here to crush you and keep you out of OUR space. If you wish to infiltrate and attack those within then you must work as a team. If that means bringing a ceptor/nullified t3 to burn pings then guess what that means you should do? I'll give you a hint, it's not cry to CCP to make that unnecessary. you already had all this with just normal non-broken drag bubbles and no citadels. if this is what you need to defend your space, then I suggest actually you something something highsec Clearly null sec is not for TrouserDeagle.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.03 19:54:38 - [158] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: you already had all this with just normal non-broken drag bubbles and no citadels. if this is what you need to defend your space, then I suggest actually you something something highsec It's not needed, it's merely another tool at our disposal. One that is easily circumvented by anyone with a brain between their ears and a hair of patience. Explain the difference to me between this and a drag bubble without a citadel when unmanned. Now what about when it's manned vs if throw a few of my alts cloaked in smartbombing BB. Both situations avoidable, both one sided as I get to chose if I take the engagement or not. Or should we possibly get rid of cloaks and smartbombs as well because they are too good of a trap for those traveling through null sec as well?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1252	Posted - 2016.07.03 20:21:00 - [159] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: you already had all this with just normal non-broken drag bubbles and no citadels. if this is what you need to defend your space, then I suggest actually you something something highsec It's not needed, it's merely another tool at our disposal. One that is easily circumvented by anyone with a brain between their ears and a hair of patience. Explain the difference to me between this and a drag bubble without a citadel when unmanned. Now what about when it's manned vs if throw a few of my alts cloaked in smartbombing BB. Both situations avoidable, both one sided as I get to chose if I take the engagement or not. Or should we possibly get rid of cloaks and smartbombs as well because they are too good of a trap for those traveling through null sec as well? I'm hearing 'nullsec is too hardcore for you, go back to highsec' from a load of camping bads who want to sit on a station in overpowered capitals and F1 on people it was fine before - if you want to yolo and not pussyfoot around the place, you get dragged. the people punishing you for that would actually be in space and off gate and you could shoot them
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1197	Posted - 2016.07.03 20:21:02 - [160] - Quote Ilian Amarin wrote: I dissagree. I dont see any reason to make the game easier for people who are too stupid to use a scouting inty or bounce of celestials. I dont see a reason to make gatecamping any easier or safer and pulling people right into your undock.

Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1197	Posted - 2016.07.03 20:28:57 - [161] - Quote Hatshepsut IV wrote: NO, please for the love of bob no. The deleterious effect this will have on w-space meta would be crushing. A large degree of w-space pvp revolves around catching/forcing people out of jump range of a hole. Just off the top of my head things that would either no longer be possible or just not useful tactics anymore. Hole control/Eviction style massing of holes. The entire concept of an eviction in w-space generally revolves around denying the opposing party all access and chance to use wormholes via keeping them crit and bubbles up to not allow them to roll/close them. (side note/ this will make holes with direct high sec connections basically impossible to evict) Fire walling via dictor bubbles to prevent reinforcements/capitals from landing in optimal combat range is one of the more effective tactics a smaller well organized force has fight/gank a larger group. Removal of drag bubbles past 500km ensures such fights are just a n+1 affair. Bubble camping W-space/highsec holes to catch people who don't scout. The entire activity becomes pointless if they can just warp blindly to the hole and still land at zero. Placing drag bubbles between pos/citadels/holes to catch people useing as a pipeline. The net result of this change from the perspective of a longtime wormholer and w-space CEO will be less killmails/less chance for interaction with people via pvp and a generally less risk environment #CCPleasesavethebubble! just curious, how does this change affect all of that jazz you described? Not like I support this "fix" but how is 500km not enough for being able to do all of that?
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.03 20:33:42 - [162] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm hearing 'nullsec is too hardcore for you, go back to highsec' from a load of camping bads who want to sit on a station in overpowered capitals and F1 on people it was fine before - if you want to yolo and not pussyfoot around the place, you get dragged. the people punishing you for that would actually be in space and off gate and you could shoot them You can't be that stupid. You didn't even read what I said. Who said **** about capitals in this thread? Not to mention the second they engage they are vulnerable so GTFO of here with that mindset. In fact if you read my reply a few pages back I'm actually in favor of citadels becoming vulnerable for a period if their weapons are used outside of the normal vulnerability timer to give it some amount of risk. Other than that I see no need for change to any mechanics. As you said, drag bubbles were fine before so I ask why change them? Why not adjust the new mechanics around the old.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1252	Posted - 2016.07.03 20:42:59 - [163] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: I'm hearing 'nullsec is too hardcore for you, go back to highsec' from a load of camping bads who want to sit on a station in overpowered capitals and F1 on people it was fine before - if you want to yolo and not pussyfoot around the place, you get dragged. the people punishing you for that would actually be in space and off gate and you could shoot them You can't be that stupid. You didn't even read what I said. Who said **** about capitals in this thread? Not to mention the second they engage they are vulnerable so GTFO of here with that mindset. In fact if you read my reply a few pages back I'm actually in favor of citadels becoming vulnerable for a period if their weapons are used outside of the normal vulnerability timer to give it some amount of risk. Other than that I see no need for change to any mechanics. As you said, drag bubbles were fine before so I ask why change them? Why not adjust the new mechanics around the old. I read a bit of your reply but it seemed kind of dumb. I didn't say anything about a citadel using its weapons
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.03 21:03:01 - [164] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: I read a bit of your reply but it seemed kind of dumb. I didn't say anything about a citadel using its weapons So maybe you are.... that has been the entire point of this change and topic of discussion here. Citadel gate camps with their PDS inspiring the desire for this change by CCP.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 790	Posted - 2016.07.03 21:54:16 - [165] - Quote Anything that messes with nullsec dwellers is a big yes from me. Screw them.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1286	Posted - 2016.07.03 23:57:23 - [166] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: ...You seem lost and quite upset my friend. Might I help point you in the direction of low and high security space where you don't have to face such dangers? Null defense is not about playing nice with small gang. We are here to crush you and keep you out of OUR space. If you wish to infiltrate and attack those within then you must work as a team. If that means bringing a ceptor/nullified t3 to burn pings then guess what that means you should do? I'll give you a hint, it's not cry to CCP to make that unnecessary. I am never lost, only unfamiliar in most parts of nullsec or lowsec. I just don't like bubbles, except for when I use them. But then, we used 2 of them and did not bubble ourselves into that unbrave farmville system with 2577965067076162375664357 large bubbles on that one gate - yes I am looking at you unbrave noobbies, hugging your tether cable. What those unbrave noobbies don't know is that bubble spamming is bad and you should feel bad by an extra long all not paid New Eden vacation for 4 weeks. If you on the other hand ever make a thread about no content in nullsec because nobody wants to visit you, I may come back to haunt you. Citadels on a gate is the same bad thing that we had with mines. Yes EVE had mines, don't create another thread asking for them again. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 1198	Posted - 2016.07.04 00:04:02 - [167] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: Anything that messes with nullsec dwellers is a big yes from me. Screw them. its not a messing "with" nullsec dwellers, its messing between nullsec dwellers and thus completely neutral to the rest of eve. Now you can go back to wardeccing small industry corps for their retrievers.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.04 02:16:58 - [168] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Citadels on a gate is the same bad thing that we had with mines. Yes EVE had mines, don't create another thread asking for them again. Come now I think mines returning to EVE would be hilariously good fun.. till my client crashes.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 417	Posted - 2016.07.04 05:59:50 - [169] - Quote I see the benefits of this. But here is the question: why is it a bad thing to keep it as is? The Citadel cannot fire without being manned. But it also cannot be destroyed unless it is vulnerable - which is not often. While one can camp a gate 1,000km off with a bubble with a number of ships or ship, you have a "fighting chance". BUT, at least the Citadel cannot warp scram you... unless it is vulnerable. Which means you only have to worry about any tackle and the bubble itself - both of which can be readily fought. Give or take... this change won't really change gate camping, just excludes something that cannot scram most of the time, is not easily moved to keep as a surprise, and is pretty much begging to be a target when it is vulnerable. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 546	Posted - 2016.07.04 10:46:50 - [170] - Quote Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free. Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1669	Posted - 2016.07.04 11:24:33 - [171] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) I'm in two minds about this... anchorable bubbles do litter a lot of space, but in many places they form an important part of defenses and "owning space". It's the EVE equivalent of building a wall of sandbags and barbed wire. People are still going to put them up, but now with the added grind of repeating the setup process over and over again at yet-another-timer, which I don't think constitutes enjoyable gameplay. There's the cost factor of course, but this should not be as big a problem for all but the smallest nullsec alliances.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34091	Posted - 2016.07.04 11:38:50 - [172] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). How do you plan to model this accurately with meta balls? How about instead of setting up the most obvious straw man ever, you address the people who don't think it should happen this way at all. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34091	Posted - 2016.07.04 12:05:48 - [173] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. I think you mean they work unevenly, and you want them both equally unintuitive. How intuitive is it that you can make a ship land inside a drag bubble when they're meant to get things stuck on the edge of them like a bug? You realize you are making it so that both catch and drag bubbles will have the unintuitive behavior of putting ships in the middle of a bubble, right right? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34091	Posted - 2016.07.04 12:08:32 - [174] - Quote The best part is you can use the large bubble itself as the decloak can! excellent work larrikin. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 270	Posted - 2016.07.04 12:30:36 - [175] - Quote I am of two minds on this. Please CCP stop doing **ing stupid , but you all won't (I know) Heres the deal, change the bubbles effects to be max 1000km. That way you all (CCP) have your hard limits to the bubbles. This means any current citadel set up to do drag and point defense won't work, but they can drag the fleets to the front of the citadel and use the missiles to attack. This still leaves some love to the SOV/Citadel owner to get pay back on the roaming *es. This also make it so any friendlies warping gate to gate get pulled and placed outside the safety of the tether - which will make the citadel owner wonder, is the bubble worth it if my allies lose ships to reds? Please CCP, stop doing stupid ing **** half * ****. I love you all, but sometimes I just wonder what you all have between your brains. . . its like that stupid daily log on idea. we told you it wouldn't work and you still did it, and six weeks later pulled it b/c it didn't work. When will you all wake up? hugs and kisses. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Primary This Rifter SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 1202	Posted - 2016.07.04 15:24:41 - [176] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). So are you planning on fixing this, or do you consider it to be good gameplay? Because if you're going to cite intuitiveness as a reason for introducing the 500 km limit in the first place, you should consider that this behavior is pretty non-intuitive. The way I'd suggest fixing this is instead of measuring the 500 km limit between the warp endpoint and the center of the bubble, measure it between the endpoint and the closest point on the bubble's edge (relative to the endpoint).
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 631	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:03:25 - [177] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I think you mean they work unevenly, and you want them both equally unintuitive. How intuitive is it that you can make a ship land inside a drag bubble when they're meant to get things stuck on the edge of them like a bug? You realize you are making it so that both catch and drag bubbles will have the unintuitive behavior of putting ships in the middle of a bubble, right right? I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchorable that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sloggish speed trap that forces you to slowboat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilomters in a given direction. So forgive me if I refer to this "dragging" thing as an "emergent bug/sanctioned exploit". I have used the term once before in reference to the famous double-wrap technique. What I mean by this phrase it that this feels like a useful glitch/logic loophole that was found and widely used to such an extent that Devs seem reluctant to remove it. I can't imagine a meeting where the old developers sat around and drew on a markerboard, "Hey guys, we're going to give players this thing that acts as a brick wall/golf sand trap/acceleration gate all in one!". No, I just can't see that as being intentional in any way, shape or form. This had to emerge from an unforeseen collision of programming that was never intentional. Warp bubbles would not be called "mobile warp disruptor" if they were intended from the outset to also act as strange acceleration gates that slingshot ships past their intended landing point. The problem seems to be that Devs are trying to control and mitigate a glitch instead of fixing it. Bubbles should shut off your warp engines and cause you to fall out of warp, full stop (pun intended). There should be no way to use a stop effect to do literally the opposite of stopping people. That'd be like landing a scram on a ship and causing the ship to fly a few hundred kilometers in a random direction. Stop trying to make the glitch manageable and just remove the glitch. If it is intentional for warp bubbles to also act like acceleration gates, it is well and truly bizzare, and it is not reflected in the name or description of these items. If devs want to keep this effect, then it needs a a name change and a thorough explanation in the description of the anchorables and ship-borne bubbles, detailing every ludicrous and silly thing these things do. Right now it's "prevents warping within its area of effect". And that's not accurate. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:04:04 - [178] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them and generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail? Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 369	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:08:02 - [179] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them and generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail? Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull. Yes. I'd pick Steal over expire any day. Which does not preclude killmails in case you don't steal them of course ;-) YaY for Free Bubblez!
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:11:54 - [180] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchorable that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sloggish speed trap that forces you to slowboat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilomters in a given direction. So forgive me if I refer to this "dragging" thing as an "emergent bug/sanctioned exploit". I have used the term once before in reference to the famous double-wrap technique. What I mean by this phrase it that this feels like a useful glitch/logic loophole that was found and widely used to such an extent that Devs seem reluctant to remove it. I can't imagine a meeting where the old developers sat around and drew on a markerboard, "Hey guys, we're going to give players this thing that acts as a brick wall/golf sand trap/acceleration gate all in one!". No, I just can't see that as being intentional in any way, shape or form. This had to emerge from an unforeseen collision of programming that was never intentional. Warp bubbles would not be called "mobile warp disruptor" if they were intended from the outset to also act as strange acceleration gates that slingshot ships past their intended landing point. The problem seems to be that Devs are trying to control and mitigate a glitch instead of fixing it. Bubbles should shut off your warp engines and cause you to fall out of warp, full stop (pun intended). There should be no way to use a stop effect to do literally the opposite of stopping people. That'd be like landing a scram on a ship and causing the ship to fly a few hundred kilometers in a random direction. Stop trying to make the glitch manageable and just remove the glitch. If it is intentional for warp bubbles to also act like acceleration gates, it is well and truly bizzare, and it is not reflected in the name or description of these items. If devs want to keep this effect, then it needs a a name change and a thorough explanation in the description of the anchorables and ship-borne bubbles, detailing every ludicrous and silly thing these things do. Right now it's "prevents warping within its area of effect". And that's not accurate. Hate to break it to you mate, but Drag bubbles are absolutely an intended mechanic, and this shows in the range limitation for the effect. Whether they were originally or not is besides the point, they're a core part of Eve Online and generally make for a very interesting mechanical tool. That said I can totally get behind adding a one line description of the effect. Something along the lines of(after this change): "Pulls ships out of warp, and into the bubble, if their warp vector intersects the bubble and is within 500km of the bubble edge in either direction." You could probably spend a paragraph describing the effect in more detail, but in my experience newbies never needed more than a few sentences to get the general idea, which is that bubbles can suck you in if your warp trail intersects them.

Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 33	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:12:48 - [181] - Quote Kimimaro Yoga wrote: This seems like such a no-brainer that I'm not sure why it wasn't done back when the grid size was expanded so dramatically. In general it doesn't seem like the drag effect was intended to work at ranges of thousands to tens of thousands of KM. Allowing this in the first place is a major buff to the tactic, as being within MWD range of the gate/station/etc is no longer feasible. Specifically looking at the citadels issue, my understanding is that citadels can't be placed close to gates precisely so that they can't interfere with gate travel. Dragging directly to within range of a citadel rather negates that limitation. Agreed. citadel gate camps for easy pews.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 33	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:15:48 - [182] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) How about letting us Entosis bubbles to unanchor them and generate a "we stole your stuff" killmail? Adds incentives people not to leave bubbles just laying around, lets people steal them which is always fun (what Eve player doesn't like stealing stuff?), shows who stole them thus creating content, and generates loss tracking for something that costs as much as a T2 Frigate hull. Yes. I'd pick Steal over expire any day. Which does not preclude killmails in case you don't steal them of course ;-) YaY for Free Bubblez! yes, but you should have to be within the same range as you need to anchor / unanchor to entossis it to steal it. so yes, to steal the bubble you run the risk of being caught in the bubble if someone shows up. Risk vs reward.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1252	Posted - 2016.07.04 20:01:39 - [183] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) it's gay pls fix
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3368	Posted - 2016.07.04 20:43:55 - [184] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: I think there's a problem in how these bubbles work, and Rain touched upon it but I would like to expand. Right now, as has been thoroughly explained in this thread, you have a AOE anchor-able that does three different things depending on the way you hit it. It is either a brick wall that brings you to a halt, a sluggish speed trap that forces you to slow-boat out of it (Star Trek's Omega particle, anyone?), or it's a freaking acceleration gate that fling you hundreds of kilometres in a given direction. . Alternatively, it messes with your warp drive & navigation by creating grav eddies which distort your warp navigation, hence why it can drop you short or pull you long, and the warp eddies have a secondary effect of stopping warp being initiated within a certain range. Just to you know, create a cohesive mostly consistent logic behind them. So they aren't magically slingshoting you long, your nav computer is just dropping you out of warp in the wrong place. Of course to truly make that consistent, you would then land in the middle of the bubble, and it wouldn't matter if the bubble was in-line with your travel or not, if you passed within the range threshold you would be dragged to the middle even if it was sideways warp. That would make the bubble behaviour always consistent regardless of circumstance. For CCP Larrkin, have you considered making each bubble size have a different range at which it works, so a small bubble will only drag/stop at 100km range, while a large will at 500km range? Distances as examples but should be a ratio of the bubble size.
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.05 02:46:39 - [185] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: For CCP Larrkin, have you considered making each bubble size have a different range at which it works, so a small bubble will only drag/stop at 100km range, while a large will at 500km range? Distances as examples but should be a ratio of the bubble size. What's the point in doing this though? The larger are already strictly better in almost every circumstance, so this really just adds inconsistency and opens up the potential for further bubble shenanigans, like setting up a Large out at 500m flanked by Mediums so you land inside the Mediums (since you weren't within their drag distance) at the edge of the Large.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3368	Posted - 2016.07.05 03:33:51 - [186] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: What's the point in doing this though? The larger are already strictly better in almost every circumstance, so this really just adds inconsistency and opens up the potential for further bubble shenanigans, like setting up a Large out at 500m flanked by Mediums so you land inside the Mediums (since you weren't within their drag distance) at the edge of the Large. Sure, it also opens the possibility of missing people because they warped to 100 from something, and your bubble was 150 past it so outside it's 200km range. And if bubbles expire, then cost of the bubbles will become a lot more significant. Since you can already do this with large bubbles regardless..... it's actually less damaging to have it being a large dragging you to the middle of a medium than a small dragging you into the middle of a large.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 631	Posted - 2016.07.05 04:15:28 - [187] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Hate to break it to you mate, but Drag bubbles are absolutely an intended mechanic, and this shows in the range limitation for the effect. Whether they were originally or not is besides the point, they're a core part of Eve Online and generally make for a very interesting mechanical tool. I don't doubt that the tactic is a valuable and interesting tool. Old titans were too. So were neutral non-suspect reps. And "Calvary Ravens". Now, I'm not saying this is on the same level as any one of those. I'm just saying that things change, no matter how coveted a tool or technique is. Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be. Cade Windstalker wrote: That said I can totally get behind adding a one line description of the effect. Something along the lines of(after this change): "Pulls ships out of warp, and into the bubble, if their warp vector intersects the bubble and is within 500km of the bubble edge in either direction." I think that's satisfactory, if they're going to leave the glitch in the game. It's still counter-intuitive that a brick wall also acts like Scorpion's grappling hook (GET OVER HERE!), and I still think that it needs to be fixed and removed from the game. But if it is going to be left in place, an acknowledgement that warp disruption bubbles both stop and catapult ships around is the least the devs should do. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1099	Posted - 2016.07.05 12:03:53 - [188] - Quote Querns wrote: gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. I'd probably say "after a time period" rather than "after downtime;" otherwise, if you anchor a bunch of bubbles in USTZ or before downtime, you get shafted out of many hours of potential life. But yeah, expiration on bubbles is something that would be good. What if drag bubbles just went down after X amount of hours (4 hours for example) but the bubble remained as an anchored item (that could still be destroyed but not stolen) . All that would be required was for whoever owned it to relaunch, poof, you have your bubbles back up. If a bubble camp is active, they keep the bubbles up, if it is not actively camped the bubble is not going to drag others out of warp. Could also work as a trap, keep bubbles anchored but not active, until your target is on the way. Not unlike using hics or dictors. 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.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 633	Posted - 2016.07.05 12:42:23 - [189] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: IWhat if drag bubbles just went down after X amount of hours (4 hours for example) but the bubble remained as an anchored item (that could still be destroyed but not stolen) . All that would be required was for whoever owned it to relaunch, poof, you have your bubbles back up. If a bubble camp is active, they keep the bubbles up, if it is not actively camped the bubble is not going to drag others out of warp. Could also work as a trap, keep bubbles anchored but not active, until your target is on the way. Not unlike using hics or dictors. I like the proposal overall, but I'm also a bit mixed on it. How can something be anchored, but need to be relaunched? Are you saying it needs to be unanchored, scooped, and relaunched? Because if so, that's a bit much to do for every bubble you want to re-place. Part of me would rather it be a simple, get within 2500m and right-click to reactivate. But, on the other hand, if you did have to unanchor, scoop, and relaunch every single bubble, it would cut down on needless clusters of bubbles on every single gate, which would be a good thing. Or we could be really radical and just remove anchorable bubbles from the game, remove interdiction immunity from interceptors and T3C's, and really open up nullsec that way. <---Yeah I won't hold my breath. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Arkazian Knights Of The Massacre Princess Knightmare Of New Eden 0	Posted - 2016.07.05 12:48:20 - [190] - Quote Ok, so from what I am reading here the real issue is with the citadel bubble camp trick, which frankly I think is a good mechanic but that it does need some work, so: Leave bubble mechanics as they are, make the following (maybe not all but some) changes to citadels: Anchorable bubbles cannot be within say 300km of a citadel, HIC and Dictor bubbles can be but using the module breaks your tether for the duration of the bubble. - This would mean that the bubble ships can be engaged and killed, meaning that the invulnerability of the citadel camp is lessened severely. Carriers deploying fighters breaks tether - Again, this would make the camp less effectively immune, if you want the fighters to be pre launched from the carrier you pay the price with being vulnerable, if you want the safety of being tethered unless you choose to engage, you have a longer time between being able to engage (I am pretty sure these bubble changes won't effect this style camp in any way but still is worth a mention) Make it so using a weapon on a citadel makes that weapon vulnerable without making the whole citadel vulnerable, much like station services, or a POS weapon system. that way small gangs can fight back to a degree, naturally this would be scalar, so capital missile launchers and the keepstar doomsday would have vastly more health than subcap launchers etc. These changes, either some or all, would lead to the citadel camp being less OP, while still allowing for some emergent gameplay with them, the changes they bring to defending your space are welcome, but should still need more activity that "1 man and his 20bn ISK mostly invulnerable castle"

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1099	Posted - 2016.07.05 13:08:22 - [191] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: IWhat if drag bubbles just went down after X amount of hours (4 hours for example) but the bubble remained as an anchored item (that could still be destroyed but not stolen) . All that would be required was for whoever owned it to relaunch, poof, you have your bubbles back up. If a bubble camp is active, they keep the bubbles up, if it is not actively camped the bubble is not going to drag others out of warp. Could also work as a trap, keep bubbles anchored but not active, until your target is on the way. Not unlike using hics or dictors. I like the proposal overall, but I'm also a bit mixed on it. How can something be anchored, but need to be relaunched? Are you saying it needs to be unanchored, scooped, and relaunched? Because if so, that's a bit much to do for every bubble you want to re-place. Part of me would rather it be a simple, get within 2500m and right-click to reactivate. But, on the other hand, if you did have to unanchor, scoop, and relaunch every single bubble, it would cut down on needless clusters of bubbles on every single gate, which would be a good thing. Or we could be really radical and just remove anchorable bubbles from the game, remove interdiction immunity from interceptors and T3C's, and really open up nullsec that way. <---Yeah I won't hold my breath. Right click "Launch" was my thinking on how it would work.. Even if they had to be scooped and relaunched there would still be nightmare bubbled gates, those who use the tactic would still put in the effort to make them. Good thing is though, they would need to be actively working to keep their bubbles active, otherwise travelers get a free pass and save minutes of slowboating through masses of bubbles. No more place 40 or 50 bubbles over and around a gate and just forget them. 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.
Scuzzy Logic Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 152	Posted - 2016.07.05 13:26:42 - [192] - Quote This gets my platinum seal of approval.
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.05 14:36:30 - [193] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Sure, it also opens the possibility of missing people because they warped to 100 from something, and your bubble was 150 past it so outside it's 200km range. And if bubbles expire, then cost of the bubbles will become a lot more significant. Since you can already do this with large bubbles regardless..... it's actually less damaging to have it being a large dragging you to the middle of a medium than a small dragging you into the middle of a large. I don't feel like this answers my question here. If you anchor the wrong sized bubble at the wrong distance then that's just a player not understanding the mechanics and doing a stupid because of it, it's not actually adding anything interesting except more exceptions to what has previously been a universal rule. Also regarding bubbles, expiration, and what size drags to what. There's still nothing preventing you from simple dragging someone with a Large into a Large. Cost won't be a major factor to Null and WH groups, who are the primary users of bubbles like this, and if they expire then there will likely be a way for the user to simply unanchor them or otherwise prolong their lifetime unless someone comes along and steals/destroys them. Bubble expiry would mostly be a tool to make bubble spam involving unnecessarily large numbers of bubbles impractical or at least unappealing, not something that's going to seriously impact anyone's finances. Khan Wrenth wrote: I don't doubt that the tactic is a valuable and interesting tool. Old titans were too. So were neutral non-suspect reps. And "Calvary Ravens". Now, I'm not saying this is on the same level as any one of those. I'm just saying that things change, no matter how coveted a tool or technique is. Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be. I think that's satisfactory, if they're going to leave the glitch in the game. It's still counter-intuitive that a brick wall also acts like Scorpion's grappling hook (GET OVER HERE!), and I still think that it needs to be fixed and removed from the game. But if it is going to be left in place, an acknowledgement that warp disruption bubbles both stop and catapult ships around is the least the devs should do. I'm just not really seeing a strong reason to remove it in any of this. All of those examples you give here are things that were, in some way, breaking the risk/reward curve or creating a toxic environment. Drag bubbles are, at worst, slightly confusing and unintuitive to some players, they don't actually break gameplay that I can see. If you have an example where you think Drag Bubbles are causing a serious issue this would seem to be the thread to post it in.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 633	Posted - 2016.07.05 15:07:40 - [194] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I'm just not really seeing a strong reason to remove it in any of this. All of those examples you give here are things that were, in some way, breaking the risk/reward curve or creating a toxic environment. Drag bubbles are, at worst, slightly confusing and unintuitive to some players, they don't actually break gameplay that I can see. If you have an example where you think Drag Bubbles are causing a serious issue this would seem to be the thread to post it in. Like I said, and you quoted, I'm fine with adding it to the description. Your description line works for me. My problem with this entire thing, I thought I had made clear, was twofold: it felt like a sanctioned glitch, and was completely the opposite of the intended effect and description of the item. If CCP places that notice in the description, that's enough for me. I still feel that it's silly to have a brick wall also act like an oil slick, but as long as it's in the description then CCP can claim it's intentional all they want and the info is out there. It would still bug me on a fundamental level, but I can deal with that. Like my earlier example, would you not find it odd that sometimes, when you land a scram on someone, it micro-jumps them 100km away? CCP can also easily program that into the game. "Warp scrambler II: shuts off a target's ship's warp drive with two points of disruption, shuts off MWD's and jump drives, but will fling the target 100km in the direction of travel if he happens to be facing +/- 5^ from directly away from you". That's how I view drag bubbles. No, I'm not here to argue drag bubbles are game-breaking or anything silly like that. Just that as a function, they run completely counter to their apparent title and described purpose (to stop ships). But the description line you offered up is enough for me if CCP were to include it. You put forth a reasonable description line, and I accepted it as enough. I think that's as far as this conversation needs to go? If you feel more needs to be said, by all means...but it feels like we've reached a reasonable understanding now. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.05 16:53:32 - [195] - Quote Trimming for space. Sorry, I misinterpreted something you said as more in disagreement than it actually was. Thanks for clarifying. Khan Wrenth wrote: [quote=Cade Windstalker]If CCP places that notice in the description, that's enough for me. I still feel that it's silly to have a brick wall also act like an oil slick, but as long as it's in the description then CCP can claim it's intentional all they want and the info is out there. As far as the Lore goes, based on how Warp Drives work according to the old Wiki entry (this wiki pulled entries off the old one before it shut down) it would seem that Warp Disruption Bubbles are simultaneously interfering with the navigation instruments on the target ship and projecting the disruption field that prevents warp. This would explain why bubbles deployed after the ship enters warp have no effect on it, they're not just disrupting warp they're spoofing the grav lockon signature, which is easiest to do along the precise align being warped on since you're spoofing one vector instead of three, which the ship could throw a fit about. As for why they don't just hard-stop ships out of warp at any point, it's probably partly a safety feature, since I would imagine a ship's warp drive suddenly shutting down at post-light speeds would result in a small sun appearing, assuming there was any space for the sun to occupy after physics stopped excreting masonry. Alternatively the "Bubbles" don't actually mess with active warp drives, they just prevent the bubble from establishing in the first place in addition to the above range spoofing causing the ship to come out of warp too early or too late. Regardless of whether or not one accepts this as cannon or not I think it's fairly easy to come up with others that explain the game mechanics and don't require too many mental gymnastics.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 633	Posted - 2016.07.05 17:43:25 - [196] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: after physics stopped excreting masonry. Oh man I just fell out of my chair. Thanks for that XD Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.05 17:46:14 - [197] - Quote Khan, bubbles were always intended to work this way. Description or not. I want you to test something, I already know how this works but it seems you don't. And this level of detail should be more than enough to convince you it's not some bug that they overlooked. Set up a bubble anywhere. Try to warp to something inline with it in a frigate. Note where you land (near the edge). Now do the same thing in a cruiser/BC/BB and note where you land again. You'll notice as the mass of your ship increases you will land further and further inside the bubble. This is not some bug, it is an intended mechanic, and not one that needs "fixing" as you put it. What we need is for players to learn how to avoid a decade old mechanic. Can they add it to the description? Sure, I see no problem there. But remove it? Hell no.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1288	Posted - 2016.07.05 17:56:22 - [198] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ...Regardless of whether or not one accepts this as cannon or not I think it's fairly easy to come up with others that explain the game mechanics and don't require too many mental gymnastics. Here's one for you. The more or less loved "bubbles" can actually not exist in the first place. When you "warp" space to "move" faster than the speed of light the gravimetric drag forces applied at your ship would reduce it to a sugar-cube of metal and while you temper with space time in a FTL scenario the speed reduction to a fraction lower than the speed of light would create a time-warp that would in theory - in case your ship did survive the gravimetric drag force - not "catch" your ship in that soap bubble when you are in system but up to a year later. Bye, bye bubble camp. And just to be very cruel, how about an out-of-phase drive that isn't even present in the regular sense of space-time and you cannot interfere with that boat even if you want to farm killmails with those. Or a trans-phasic cloaking device like sleeper cruisers have? Mind blown enough or may I continue? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1518	Posted - 2016.07.06 14:16:38 - [199] - Quote I'm all for clarity. But reducing the range of anchored bubbles to some arbitrary distance doesn't really seem like the way to go about it. Can't we just update the in-game info to specify what their max range is? I was under the impression that they operated on a grid-wide basis. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.06 19:04:27 - [200] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: after physics stopped excreting masonry. Oh man I just fell out of my chair. Thanks for that XD Ahahaha, happy to help! Soldarius wrote: I'm all for clarity. But reducing the range of anchored bubbles to some arbitrary distance doesn't really seem like the way to go about it. Can't we just update the in-game info to specify what their max range is? I was under the impression that they operated on a grid-wide basis. This is incorrect, they used to before grids were expanded. Now they're 1km drag-side and any distance incoming-side. This change is pretty much just about standardizing mechanics. I would imagine there are also a few potential exploits involving grid-warping that this removes as well.

Cade Windstalker 474	Posted - 2016.07.06 19:23:25 - [201] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: ...Regardless of whether or not one accepts this as cannon or not I think it's fairly easy to come up with others that explain the game mechanics and don't require too many mental gymnastics. Here's one for you. The more or less loved "bubbles" can actually not exist in the first place. When you "warp" space to "move" faster than the speed of light the gravimetric drag forces applied at your ship would reduce it to a sugar-cube of metal and while you temper with space time in a FTL scenario the speed reduction to a fraction lower than the speed of light would create a time-warp that would in theory - in case your ship did survive the gravimetric drag force - not "catch" your ship in that soap bubble when you are in system but up to a year later. Bye, bye bubble camp. And just to be very cruel, how about an out-of-phase drive that isn't even present in the regular sense of space-time and you cannot interfere with that boat even if you want to farm killmails with those. Or a trans-phasic cloaking device like sleeper cruisers have? Mind blown enough or may I continue? The explanation given for warp drive mechanics in that wiki entry I linked gets around more or less all of this, because the area of space time you're traveling "on" is flat, so no "gravimetric drag forces" or other nastiness. How does it do that? That's why this is Science Fiction Though if you have an FTL drive to test I'm sure CCP, Nasa, Cern, and any number of other people would love to hear about it!
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 576	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:04:18 - [202] - Quote this would be the best way to break immersion in 0.0. just anchored a bubble to stop traffic? oh sorry, just rewarp that last 500km. sorry bruh. and i hate 0.0 but even i can see that thiswould take alot of fun out for the small gangers out there Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Cade Windstalker 475	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:38:35 - [203] - Quote Flyinghotpocket wrote: this would be the best way to break immersion in 0.0. just anchored a bubble to stop traffic? oh sorry, just rewarp that last 500km. sorry bruh. and i hate 0.0 but even i can see that thiswould take alot of fun out for the small gangers out there I feel like you're not really understanding how this change is going to work... or how bubbles work in general, one of the two. Bubbles after this change is literally exactly how bubbles work now, but with the range at 500km either side of the warp, as opposed to the current 1k drag and edge of grid back along the warp path. In either case if you don't actually man your bubbles someone can just burn out, around or away from it and warp again.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1291	Posted - 2016.07.06 23:46:12 - [204] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ...The explanation given for warp drive mechanics in that wiki entry I linked gets around more or less all of this, because the area of space time you're traveling "on" is flat, so no "gravimetric drag forces" or other nastiness. How does it do that? That's why this is Science Fiction Though if you have an FTL drive to test I'm sure CCP, Nasa, Cern, and any number of other people would love to hear about it! You asked for mental gymnastics and I gave it. Not my fault you didn't understand most of it, it is fine. Same thing happens when I try to explain to my buddies how very exciting subatomic particles are or how to make quantum entanglement work for "long distance calls". Would be easy enough to "read" a binary message of entangled up- and down-quarks but okay, I always get some angry looks when I talk about spins and quarks and... okay I stop.. I bet the JPL would be very interested but since I don't have a physics degree, they wouldn't even listen in the first place.. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 374	Posted - 2016.07.06 23:54:57 - [205] - Quote ...or perhaps since you don't have a physics degree you're just quoting stuff anyone can find on Youtube with no practical application, most certainly nothing dragbubble related?
Cade Windstalker 477	Posted - 2016.07.07 00:17:02 - [206] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: ...The explanation given for warp drive mechanics in that wiki entry I linked gets around more or less all of this, because the area of space time you're traveling "on" is flat, so no "gravimetric drag forces" or other nastiness. How does it do that? That's why this is Science Fiction Though if you have an FTL drive to test I'm sure CCP, Nasa, Cern, and any number of other people would love to hear about it! You asked for mental gymnastics and I gave it. Not my fault you didn't understand most of it, it is fine. Same thing happens when I try to explain to my buddies how very exciting subatomic particles are or how to make quantum entanglement work for "long distance calls". Would be easy enough to "read" a binary message of entangled up- and down-quarks but okay, I always get some angry looks when I talk about spins and quarks and... okay I stop.. I bet the JPL would be very interested but since I don't have a physics degree, they wouldn't even listen in the first place.. I actually did understand most of it, I just don't think it counters or subverts the currently available technobabble about how Eve Online warp-drives work. This is Science Fiction so current theories about warp drives, and their possible problems, are at best tangentially applicable. Also gravity waves, and really any effects from going past the speed of light, wouldn't apply here. By definition a warp drive that's pinching space has to have an isolated core. What you should really be asking here is how the hells we go through planets instead of turning them into new asteroid belts...
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 30	Posted - 2016.07.07 22:37:27 - [207] - Quote + for the band aid fix how about moving citadels off grid, sure there aren't too many citadel gatecamps.... >_____> Zacktar wrote: I think dragging or stopping a warp should be completely removed. It is very risk averse for bubble campers to partake of this cowardly act. Anything landing that may be a threat to them allows them to simply not engage or overwhelm. Fish in a barrel thing. My opinion is to not allow bubbles to affect already in warp ships at all. Not sure if troll or special snowflake. You sure watched one or two pvp videos but throwing the therm "risk awerse" at drag bubbles sends a message you got no idea what it means or how camps work. Won't even comment on the warp thing, think on your own what it would do to bubble ships and fleet pvp.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1104	Posted - 2016.07.08 00:41:48 - [208] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: + for the band aid fix how about moving citadels off grid, sure there aren't too many citadel gatecamps.... >_____> Zacktar wrote: I think dragging or stopping a warp should be completely removed. It is very risk averse for bubble campers to partake of this cowardly act. Anything landing that may be a threat to them allows them to simply not engage or overwhelm. Fish in a barrel thing. My opinion is to not allow bubbles to affect already in warp ships at all. Not sure if troll or special snowflake. You sure watched one or two pvp videos but throwing the therm "risk awerse" at drag bubbles sends a message you got no idea what it means or how camps work. Won't even comment on the warp thing, think on your own what it would do to bubble ships and fleet pvp. Of course bubble camps have an element of risk aversion. Like the guy/s who sits cloaked at the edge of the bubbles, will let anything he can't or won't fight because he might lose slowboat to the gate but if something that poses no risk to him (hauler for example) lands in his bubble trap he will race to kill it (notice i said kill it, not fight it). No risk, all reward. 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.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.08 02:12:54 - [209] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: No risk, all reward. ~EVE 2016
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 378	Posted - 2016.07.08 03:40:57 - [210] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Like the guy/s who sits cloaked at the edge of the bubbles, will let anything he can't or won't fight because he might lose slowboat to the gate but if something that poses no risk to him (hauler for example) lands in his bubble trap he will race to kill it (notice i said kill it, not fight it). No risk, all reward. Till the hauler lights his cyno that is. Till something comes through he can kill, followed by a ceptorfleet. Till the ship turns out to be a deadspace death machine. Till undersized guns. Till another cloaky shows up and waits for the camper to make a move. Till bait Nereus. ..... no risk confirmed.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2968	Posted - 2016.07.08 05:52:36 - [211] - Quote Querns wrote: Ship it! CCP Larrikin and CCP Rise 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."
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1104	Posted - 2016.07.08 06:22:02 - [212] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Like the guy/s who sits cloaked at the edge of the bubbles, will let anything he can't or won't fight because he might lose slowboat to the gate but if something that poses no risk to him (hauler for example) lands in his bubble trap he will race to kill it (notice i said kill it, not fight it). No risk, all reward. Till the hauler lights his cyno that is. Till something comes through he can kill, followed by a ceptorfleet. Till the ship turns out to be a deadspace death machine. Till undersized guns. Till another cloaky shows up and waits for the camper to make a move. Till bait Nereus. ..... no risk confirmed. LOL.. you really live out there don't you. Who's going to waste a cyno and fatigue on a Svipul ganking off a drag bubble? Hmm he's sitting cloaked off a drag bubble and DOESN'T see a ceptor fleet jump in and warp to him - He deserves to die. A deaspsace fit hauler that can outgun a Svipul - I'd like to see that fit. Undersized guns? wtf does that have to do with anything.. Another cloaky? yeah ok I'll give you that 100 to 1 shot. so minor risk that is pretty easy to avoid. If he's cloaked off the same drag bubble, chances are he is hunting too. Bait nereus - Stupidity on the hunters side doesn't make it risky. Still by the time the Nereus's support fleet jumps in and warps to the bubble, the Nereus should be well and truely dead. So I'll upgrade risk to minimal, depending on how smart the hunter is - A stupid hunter, well, you get the idea but that's more player skill vs reward, not risk vs reward. A lone hunter off a drag bubble faces, minimal risk, if any at all. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1517	Posted - 2016.07.08 09:31:00 - [213] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: A deaspsace fit hauler that can outgun a Svipul - I'd like to see that fit. HTH
Ooohhmmm suicide b.y cop 3	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:17:59 - [214] - Quote If this means I can no longer deploy a working bubble mid-way, between gates. No thanks. Back to the drawing board. Perhaps link change to citadels, as this is how this has been exploited?
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1651	Posted - 2016.07.08 13:45:16 - [215] - Quote I have removed an off-topic post. Please keep it clean and on-topic. Quote: 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. ISD Decoy Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Cade Windstalker 477	Posted - 2016.07.08 15:13:30 - [216] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: A deaspsace fit hauler that can outgun a Svipul - I'd like to see that fit. HTH BUAHAHAHAHA Is k guys, we found the counter to T3Ds, everyone can go home now... Seriously warn people before linking stuff like that, I almost died laughing in public. Ooohhmmm wrote: If this means I can no longer deploy a working bubble mid-way, between gates. No thanks. Back to the drawing board. Perhaps link change to citadels, as this is how this has been exploited? That would be the case behind this change. You could still deploy your catch bubble on-grid with the gate though. What can you do that is very significant with this bubble setup that you can't also do with an on-grid setup at the gate?
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1303	Posted - 2016.07.09 14:50:10 - [217] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Like the guy/s who sits cloaked at the edge of the bubbles, will let anything he can't or won't fight because he might lose slowboat to the gate but if something that poses no risk to him (hauler for example) lands in his bubble trap he will race to kill it (notice i said kill it, not fight it). No risk, all reward. Till the hauler lights his cyno that is. Till something comes through he can kill, followed by a ceptorfleet. Till the ship turns out to be a deadspace death machine. Till undersized guns. Till another cloaky shows up and waits for the camper to make a move. Till bait Nereus. ..... no risk confirmed. LOL.. you really live out there don't you. Who's going to waste a cyno and fatigue on a Svipul ganking off a drag bubble? I can answer that. And the winners of this years griefing award goes to (drumroll) ... Good Sex and the Romulans. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Ryzelll Inner Shadow Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2016.07.12 02:19:09 - [218] - Quote Go ahead and make the change I'll just find a new way abuse the mechanic and so will everyone else.
Cade Windstalker 483	Posted - 2016.07.12 03:12:52 - [219] - Quote Ryzelll wrote: Go ahead and make the change I'll just find a new way abuse the mechanic and so will everyone else. But it won't be this way or these exact mechanics, and thus the game of whack-a-mole continues...
Guillome Renard Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind 96	Posted - 2016.07.12 14:19:37 - [220] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A Make sure you include ESS in this as well, since they're a backdoor bubble. http://fcftw.eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=662501

Anthar Thebess 1614	Posted - 2016.07.14 11:58:16 - [221] - Quote Why not give us more bubbles including one that block nullified ships? People ask for this for a long time. If i have sov, why i cannot deploy a bubble that will block all nullified ships ? Let say, separate type of bubble, that need to be entosised to work and block incoming nullified ships. Perfect balance - no AFK game play. You don't have entosis link running - there is no bubble - you apply entosis - you get anti nullification bubble. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Cade Windstalker 489	Posted - 2016.07.14 12:44:44 - [222] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Why not give us more bubbles including one that block nullified ships? People ask for this for a long time. If i have sov, why i cannot deploy a bubble that will block all nullified ships ? Let say, separate type of bubble, that need to be entosised to work and block incoming nullified ships. Perfect balance - no AFK game play. You don't have entosis link running - there is no bubble - you apply entosis - you get anti nullification bubble. Because if there's a Bubble that blocks Nullified Ships then there's no reason to use anything else and the whole point and advantage of Nullified ships goes almost completely out the window? Making it something that needs to be active to be used doesn't really change that your proposal negates a major feature of several hulls. If you want to catch, stop, or destroy Nullified hulls then there are already several options available to you, including Smartbomb camps, insta-lock on the in-gate, and guarding whatever they're going after.
Anthar Thebess 1614	Posted - 2016.07.14 12:48:55 - [223] - Quote Bubble need to be entosised to work, by adding simple modification that this module only works when both module and entosising person are from alliance holding TCU in system, we get pretty balanced mechanic. You fought for the space, and conquered it - you get important benefits. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Cade Windstalker 489	Posted - 2016.07.14 16:36:20 - [224] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Bubble need to be entosised to work, by adding simple modification that this module only works when both module and entosising person are from alliance holding TCU in system, we get pretty balanced mechanic. You fought for the space, and conquered it - you get important benefits. This isn't actually a good argument for the benefit you're proposing though. There are already plenty of benefits to owning space, what you need to do is make a case for why having a barely trained alt (with a fit worth less than a T2 Large bubble) pointing a module at an anchored bubble should negate a major ability on several ship classes and why this is good gameplay. A successful camp already requires active participation, and there are already tools available to deal with Interceptors, it's just difficult which is the point of the ship.
Zataer Kanewald Bad Game Design NullSechnaya Sholupen 0	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:18:24 - [225] - Quote Instead of adding an expiry timer to bubbles, can we have gate rats shoot bubbles that they land in? If someone wants to leave 20 unattended bubbles on a gate, the resident NPCs should just shoot them.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2874	Posted - 2016.07.17 02:20:16 - [226] - Quote i think it would be better just to get citadels off gate grids Citadel worm hole tax
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2971	Posted - 2016.07.17 05:42:21 - [227] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i think it would be better just to get citadels off gate grids Only need to get citadels out of firing range of gate grids. There is no harm in them showing up on the overview. 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."
Anthar Thebess 1614	Posted - 2016.07.18 11:04:28 - [228] - Quote Can we get citadels closer to gates, like 50 km off tether range will be perfect. If someone own the space he should be able to do whatever he likes. EVE nullsec is sandbox - why add rules that negate this sandbox? Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Cade Windstalker 492	Posted - 2016.07.18 14:06:56 - [229] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can we get citadels closer to gates, like 50 km off tether range will be perfect. If someone own the space he should be able to do whatever he likes. EVE nullsec is sandbox - why add rules that negate this sandbox? Rules don't negate the sandbox, but broken risk/reward situations can damage play in it. If you want to block of part of your space then put ships out there, at risk, and get shot at in return. You want to have Citadels as a bolt-hole then great, put them on-grid and warp to them if you need to dock up or repair, should be a fantastic defensive advantage if you use it correctly.
Anthar Thebess 1615	Posted - 2016.07.19 08:43:36 - [230] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Can we get citadels closer to gates, like 50 km off tether range will be perfect. If someone own the space he should be able to do whatever he likes. EVE nullsec is sandbox - why add rules that negate this sandbox? Rules don't negate the sandbox, but broken risk/reward situations can damage play in it. If you want to block of part of your space then put ships out there, at risk, and get shot at in return. You want to have Citadels as a bolt-hole then great, put them on-grid and warp to them if you need to dock up or repair, should be a fantastic defensive advantage if you use it correctly. This was a troll, but troll to protect sandbox. Balancing a ship or game is one thing, but balancing things to compensate someone lack of skill or willingness to learn is another. Bubbles where never a huge issue, they provide a lot of game play options - and the only thing that is missing is the lack of killmails for them. If we get kill-mails, roaming gangs will clear the gates by them self. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!

Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 642	Posted - 2016.07.19 09:13:49 - [231] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: This was a troll, but troll to protect sandbox. Balancing a ship or game is one thing, but balancing things to compensate someone lack of skill or willingness to learn is another. Bubbles where never a huge issue, they provide a lot of game play options - and the only thing that is missing is the lack of killmails for them. If we get kill-mails, roaming gangs will clear the gates by them self. I have my doubts. If you organize a group op for a roam...yes you can run happily through null smashing all of the anchored bubbles and generate lots of positive isk killmails for your corp. But that's not really engaging content for anybody involved. How many people are going to sign up for that roam the second time the op is organized? The third? I find it very hard to imagine people would go for that on a regular basis. I can only speak for myself on this, but I would get more enjoyment over running yet another level 4 mission, because at least that nets me some isk and the game interacts back with me. Smashing anchored bubbles is just as engaging as mining, with none of the rewards and much more wasted time. I don't imagine killmails will suddenly make that activity any more exciting for people. Yes, I can be wrong, I'm just saying I find your scenario implausible. I'm all for bubble killmails, and if your perception actually works out, fantastic! I just don't see it coming to fruition. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Cade Windstalker 497	Posted - 2016.07.19 13:23:09 - [232] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: This was a troll, but troll to protect sandbox. Balancing a ship or game is one thing, but balancing things to compensate someone lack of skill or willingness to learn is another. Bubbles where never a huge issue, they provide a lot of game play options - and the only thing that is missing is the lack of killmails for them. If we get kill-mails, roaming gangs will clear the gates by them self. The unwillingness to learn is on the part of the people who are now seemingly unable to defend their space without an invulnerable citadel and a bunch of bubbles sitting off a gate. On-gate Citadels are massive reward for zero risk, which is massively un-Eve, that's why they lose out here. As for the idea that Bubbles just need kill-mails... that's ridiculous. Bubbles cost about as much as a T2 Frigate, and have about as much HP as a Carrier. No one wants to sit through the time required to kill even one, especially in hostile territory, let alone more than one. Plus, if those bubbles are sitting on top of a Citadel, then no one is going to be able to sit around and kill them without dying. For a 20 million ISK killmail. That didn't itself shoot back. Right, totally something people are going to actively do because that sounds like so much fun.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2628	Posted - 2016.07.19 16:51:28 - [233] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: This was a troll, but troll to protect sandbox. Balancing a ship or game is one thing, but balancing things to compensate someone lack of skill or willingness to learn is another. Bubbles where never a huge issue, they provide a lot of game play options - and the only thing that is missing is the lack of killmails for them. If we get kill-mails, roaming gangs will clear the gates by them self. The unwillingness to learn is on the part of the people who are now seemingly unable to defend their space without an invulnerable citadel and a bunch of bubbles sitting off a gate. On-gate Citadels are massive reward for zero risk, which is massively un-Eve, that's why they lose out here. As for the idea that Bubbles just need kill-mails... that's ridiculous. Bubbles cost about as much as a T2 Frigate, and have about as much HP as a Carrier. No one wants to sit through the time required to kill even one, especially in hostile territory, let alone more than one. Plus, if those bubbles are sitting on top of a Citadel, then no one is going to be able to sit around and kill them without dying. For a 20 million ISK killmail. That didn't itself shoot back. Right, totally something people are going to actively do because that sounds like so much fun. Bubbles are just like any other structure - except for the fact that they do not generate lossmails for the enemy. I know plenty of people who will sign up to go shoot a POS. I've known plenty of roaming gangs who will stick around to shoot MTU's after scanning them down. If it causes losses for your enemy and generates a killmail for you, people will do it. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Cade Windstalker 498	Posted - 2016.07.20 03:12:15 - [234] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Bubbles are just like any other structure - except for the fact that they do not generate lossmails for the enemy. I know plenty of people who will sign up to go shoot a POS. I've known plenty of roaming gangs who will stick around to shoot MTU's after scanning them down. If it causes losses for your enemy and generates a killmail for you, people will do it. Bit of a difference between a fleet formed to do those things, and especially a fleet formed to shoot something that drops loot, and whacking away and anywhere between one and a dozen or more balls of a quarter million HP each, just to clear one gate. I'm not saying I'm against bubbles generating kill mails, I'm all for it, but I don't think that solves the issue with bubbles on Citadels. If nothing else at that point what you're actually doing is signing up to shoot a Citadel that can't be directly hurt, and the enemy takes basically no risk for it.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 34	Posted - 2016.07.21 17:37:39 - [235] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Khan Wrenth wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: after physics stopped excreting masonry. Oh man I just fell out of my chair. Thanks for that XD Ahahaha, happy to help! Soldarius wrote: I'm all for clarity. But reducing the range of anchored bubbles to some arbitrary distance doesn't really seem like the way to go about it. Can't we just update the in-game info to specify what their max range is? I was under the impression that they operated on a grid-wide basis. This is incorrect, they used to before grids were expanded. Now they're 1km drag-side and any distance incoming-side. This change is pretty much just about standardizing mechanics. I would imagine there are also a few potential exploits involving grid-warping that this removes as well. Many many many expansions ago, you used to be abel to put them in between gates and pull people out of warp.
Cade Windstalker 503	Posted - 2016.07.22 01:26:51 - [236] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: This is incorrect, they used to before grids were expanded. Now they're 1km drag-side and any distance incoming-side. This change is pretty much just about standardizing mechanics. I would imagine there are also a few potential exploits involving grid-warping that this removes as well. Many many many expansions ago, you used to be abel to put them in between gates and pull people out of warp. Yup, but that was long enough ago as to not be relevant to this discussion.
Anthar Thebess 1617	Posted - 2016.07.22 10:51:26 - [237] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: This is incorrect, they used to before grids were expanded. Now they're 1km drag-side and any distance incoming-side. This change is pretty much just about standardizing mechanics. I would imagine there are also a few potential exploits involving grid-warping that this removes as well. Many many many expansions ago, you used to be abel to put them in between gates and pull people out of warp. Yup, but that was long enough ago as to not be relevant to this discussion. Good old days. When eve was grate. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Lasko Ferrani DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax 5	Posted - 2016.07.23 03:47:56 - [238] - Quote No real reason to mess with the bubble anchor distance. You're only going to get caught if you don't use tacticals. Could see maybe making the point defense a non-repeating module so has to have someone keeping it running or maybe giving it a limit on the number of pulses it does per activation so it's can't be pure AFK and still kill.
Cade Windstalker 507	Posted - 2016.07.23 04:55:38 - [239] - Quote Lasko Ferrani wrote: No real reason to mess with the bubble anchor distance. Except for the whole zero-risk Citadels thing. It isn't even the AFKing that's the problem, it's the zero risk factor. Read through the rest of this thread and you'll find that people have addressed the rest of your post and why "use tacticals" isn't a valid counter point for this not being a broken mechanic.
Infinity Ziona Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2410	Posted - 2016.07.24 10:46:37 - [240] - Quote Arizan Holosalintan wrote: I disagree Currently there are interdiction nullified ships present in the game, allowing for the avoidance of Citadel drag bubbles. Travel ceptors are unlockable and should be used to scout your routes. If you're travelling a route you haven't scouted, it should the defender who has the advantage. Grids are currently 8'000km. Grids of this size would be not be fully utilized if we're only going to use 500km. Warp disruption bubbles and drag bubbling allow for grid manipulation and control. The ability to change the terrain and manipulate it allows for interesting scenarios to develop based upon point of origin and setup. Bubble camping a gate with a citadel only puts you in range of the PDS systems, as such small things (if you haven't scouted your) will be affected. If you have scouted your route, why are you warping gate to gate? Shouldn't you bounce from a moon, planet or anomaly to avoid bubble? If you're bigger, haven't scouted, and land in the bubble depending on the ship you have you'll land in a warp bubble as normal and suffer the consequences. Citadel camping, i.e being on a citadel with carriers and attacking people on the gate bubbles won't be fixed by this. Being in a Citadel camping with the PDS smart bombs won't save you from a manned gate camp. So in brief this change is an attempt to protect travel from manned gate camps. Which it won't prevent because apparently the smart bombs on citadels are too OP (which they aren't) on account of people traveling through space without scouting (which they shouldn't). Does that about cover it? I think it would be a good idea for CCP to get away from the general perception / truth that playing EvE requires two accounts minimum. Essentially new people look at that and go "why would I want to pay $30.00 for a 15 year old game, double the usual sub of current MMO's, for the hassle of needing to multi-box two accounts simply so I can travel around without getting insta killed by the rich and powerful older players?". The emphasis should be imo, on the attacker doing work to get kills, not on the defender paying double and doing double work while the attacker sits immobile and invulnerable doing nothing but a click and press. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2016.07.25 03:40:34 - [241] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: I think it would be a good idea for CCP to get away from the general perception / truth that playing EvE requires two accounts minimum. Essentially new people look at that and go "why would I want to pay $30.00 for a 15 year old game, double the usual sub of current MMO's, for the hassle of needing to multi-box two accounts simply so I can travel around without getting insta killed by the rich and powerful older players?". The emphasis should be imo, on the attacker doing work to get kills, not on the defender paying double and doing double work while the attacker sits immobile and invulnerable doing nothing but a click and press. You do not need more than one account to play this game. However, if you do not, you either need friends to make up for such things you cannot accomplish on your own (scouting and burning pings for the topic at hand). First and foremost being preplaning your route through hostile space, which includes not only looking at your route ahead of time, but also traveling that path in a ceptor and bookmarking your own pings. If that sounds like too much then maybe some people are expecting too much hand holding for their solo lifestyle in this harsh MMO.
vikari Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Goonswarm Federation 140	Posted - 2016.07.25 07:28:55 - [242] - Quote Huge supporter of this change! 500km is more then enough to play a major strategic role in things. Whether you are stopping people from roaming easily to slowing a fleet from running. The only major effect I see is that this would stop citadels from being used as the new gate camp. The citadel wasn't meant to be part of a gate camp or some stargate protection scheme. It's here to replace POS, and other structures in space. If you want to protect your sov from people, one guy in a citadel isn't a reasonable way to do it. Make a fleet.
neggies Ten Dollar Bond GoonSwarm 0	Posted - 2016.07.27 08:04:25 - [243] - Quote You could solve this by giving bubbles an internal 'capacitor' of sorts used to generate the field, that lasts (say) 24 hours, which can be replenished by anyone in the launching alliance right clicking on it and hitting "recharge", or maybe by loading in a single unit of jump fuel or stront or something. Doesn't break the tactic (as I have nothing against the idea of citadel camping in the first place, ultimately someone still has to be present to man citadel weaponry and it's pretty easy to dodge a citadel camp by bouncing to an anom or celestial) but would mean that some actual effort would have to be put in (and discourage massive ****-you walls of 25+ bubbles). Would also potentially allow for the interesting option of neuting down bubbles if you make it an actual capacitor like a ship. You'd want to make it pretty big. Might be cool. You could also just limit the number of bubbles on-grid with each other. As for the issue of landing in the center of larger blobs of bubbles, I've experienced this personally (and it sucks major ass) and can't help but wonder how much effort it would be for CCP to dump you on the edge of only the bubble nearest to your destination.
Lexx Devi Freeport . 7 1	Posted - 2016.08.02 10:05:49 - [244] - Quote So i se 2 camps to this. 1st Deffending camp: Is trying to engineer a way to kill of enemies that dont pay attention, this is a effective way to turn a tide. Its a engineer feauture a sand castle and most likley trying to keep non pvp ships & "Friendship" safe. 2nd Offending/Traveling party: Traveling from gate to gate is difficult as they get caught loosing alot of ships to a firewall, Still this can with a super high% can easily be circumvented with proper scouting & planning. My view, As scanning & transporting in null. Fleets "Navigate" Space? Why allow fleets to run gate to gate & not navigate systems to safty/desto? With interdicted nullifyed scouts able of seeing these dangers, burn ping or get the the fleet to bounce of cilestials. LAZY non-scouting dangerous space? Salthy gamers wanting everything to be easier? I scout & Dscan when flying ALONE & still not getting caugth. Its like Not using a water to put out fire. Lets make fire harmless. Keep Bubbled on 1000km, make the ppl have a challange & learn the good way. The hard way of LIFE. *Help your fleet, SCOUT! The M,L,XL citadel is a Weaponized platform, make it frequently used or let it be a dusty 6Ponder no one ever uses. The Citadel Will replace Station & Citadel. It is NOT the same as a POS, make it new, its intresting. Think "Outside The POS"
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 533	Posted - 2016.08.02 10:12:20 - [245] - Quote Problem with citadels was they're immune. Any other kind of gatecamp can at least be engaged. Just because they can be circumvented doesn't make an immune doomsday alright.
Lexx Devi Freeport . 7 1	Posted - 2016.08.02 10:27:17 - [246] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Problem with citadels was they're immune. Any other kind of gatecamp can at least be engaged. Just because they can be circumvented doesn't make an immune doomsday alright. Immune yes, if its camping you 0on gate kill it of it cant even target you your not in danger. Ok, i hear what your saying. im looking from as many senarios as i can imagine, Attacking, Deffending, Camper, Victim, Owner, Grefer, Rage, Troll, FC, Miner, Transporter. This is my responce: If your sitting on the gate "Your Not Camped" by a citadel, its 1000km of. You faild at scouting yes you get stuck. Still, "your not camped" If you sitt on gate no "your not camped" by citadel. If theres a weapon that reaches from the citadel, if the "doomsday" can, then change the Doomsday. This forum sounds more like a place for controling the game then contributing. Everyone Wants their own view to succed without the tougth of anyone else but their known friends. Sounds like your saying its sitting on 0km off the gate.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1122	Posted - 2016.08.03 03:44:59 - [247] - Quote Lexx Devi wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Problem with citadels was they're immune. Any other kind of gatecamp can at least be engaged. Just because they can be circumvented doesn't make an immune doomsday alright. Immune yes, if its camping you 0on gate kill it of it cant even target you your not in danger. Ok, i hear what your saying. im looking from as many senarios as i can imagine, Attacking, Deffending, Camper, Victim, Owner, Grefer, Rage, Troll, FC, Miner, Transporter. This is my responce: If your sitting on the gate "Your Not Camped" by a citadel, its 1000km of. You faild at scouting yes you get stuck. Still, "your not camped" If you sitt on gate no "your not camped" by citadel. If theres a weapon that reaches from the citadel, if the "doomsday" can, then change the Doomsday. This forum sounds more like a place for controling the game then contributing. Everyone Wants their own view to succed without the tougth of anyone else but their known friends. Sounds like your saying its sitting on 0km off the gate. You do realize the problem was seen as the drag bubbles that pull you out of warp and land you in range of a Citadel's weapons. It is just an example of Devs not taking different use scenarios into consideration when implementing new things. Eve players will abuse any mechanic that is not locked down and like with so many other changes, they nerf everything around the "problem" rather than addressing it in a professional way. Someone was smart enough to work out you could place a drag bubble right next to a Citadel and use it to kill others, Devs are now rectifying something that never should have been possible by nerfing the surrounding mechanics (not the thing that caused the issue, it doesn't get touched and so will still be there for the next exploit finder to use - leading to more nerfs). It would have made far more sense to just increase the range which Citadels could be placed from a gate - But that would have been too easy, so they decided to screw up a perfectly fine mechanic that has been part of gate camping (nulsec life) forever by changing and limiting its use. 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.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1353	Posted - 2016.08.03 08:18:51 - [248] - Quote While we are at it, put an anchoring minimum distance of 100km between each bubble from the edge of the bubble, not the center. That way, not-so-brave need to be vary in their mining system and not have 30570586265 bubbles with 2m distance to each other. Git gud! If you cannot pvp, don't pvp. If you cannot defend your space, don't own space. If you cannot organize, you should think about your lives and return to highsec. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3482	Posted - 2016.08.03 12:29:48 - [249] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: It would have made far more sense to just increase the range which Citadels could be placed from a gate - But that would have been too easy, so they decided to screw up a perfectly fine mechanic that has been part of gate camping (nulsec life) forever by changing and limiting its use. Please explain how drag bubbles were dragging you more than 500km off gate before new grids got introduced without indulging in major potentially exploiting grid fu? Pretty much they weren't and you weren't using bubbles any differently than you will be able to after the change limiting them to 500km range goes through.
Cade Windstalker 526	Posted - 2016.08.03 17:38:42 - [250] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: You do realize the problem was seen as the drag bubbles that pull you out of warp and land you in range of a Citadel's weapons. It is just an example of Devs not taking different use scenarios into consideration when implementing new things. Eve players will abuse any mechanic that is not locked down and like with so many other changes, they nerf everything around the "problem" rather than addressing it in a professional way. Someone was smart enough to work out you could place a drag bubble right next to a Citadel and use it to kill others, Devs are now rectifying something that never should have been possible by nerfing the surrounding mechanics (not the thing that caused the issue, it doesn't get touched and so will still be there for the next exploit finder to use - leading to more nerfs). It would have made far more sense to just increase the range which Citadels could be placed from a gate - But that would have been too easy, so they decided to screw up a perfectly fine mechanic that has been part of gate camping (nulsec life) forever by changing and limiting its use. They're fixing this in a way that makes perfect sense, especially since it also standardizes another mechanic. The issue, and the only issue, is the interaction between bubbles and Citadels. That least either adjusting Citadels or adjusting bubbles, and adjusting bubbles impacts fewer things overall and makes perfect sense. Also it's ridiculous to claim that these mechanics have been part of Null "forever". They've changed bubbles in small ways like this a couple of times, and these ranges have only been present since the grid size was changed. For the majority of Eve history the range was actually shorter than the new 500km range, and way shorter than the 1000km we have now. Really this whole post feels like unjustified salt.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1122	Posted - 2016.08.03 17:42:36 - [251] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: It would have made far more sense to just increase the range which Citadels could be placed from a gate - But that would have been too easy, so they decided to screw up a perfectly fine mechanic that has been part of gate camping (nulsec life) forever by changing and limiting its use. Please explain how drag bubbles were dragging you more than 500km off gate before new grids got introduced without indulging in major potentially exploiting grid fu? Pretty much they weren't and you weren't using bubbles any differently than you will be able to after the change limiting them to 500km range goes through. Seriously - That's what you took from that? Is it any wonder Devs stay on Reddit - Most of those who post here are too narrow minded to understand a simple statement - Devs implemented something that requires changing something unrelated because they didn't take the time to see how the changes may be used in unintended ways. Large grids + Citadels created a bad (unforeseen) game mechanic. A simple drag bubble 500K off a gate is no problem, unless it is manned (or next to a Citadel - 1,000k off a gate, which seems to be the major consideration) you just exit it and warp to the gate. One that is 100k off a gate is far worse, you have to bounce to get back to the gate or slowboat it. The extended grid only allowed players to abuse a mechanic that had been in the game for years in a way that was unintended - gate camping with Citadels.. Whether you could or couldn't have a bubble pull you 500k prior to the changes is completely irrelevant. It really isn't that hard to work out. READ THE OP. 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.
Cade Windstalker 526	Posted - 2016.08.03 17:56:58 - [252] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously - That's what you took from that? Is it any wonder Devs stay on Reddit - Most of those who post here are too narrow minded to understand a simple statement - Devs implemented something that requires changing something unrelated because they didn't take the time to see how the changes may be used in unintended ways. Large grids + Citadels created a bad (unforeseen) game mechanic. A simple drag bubble 500K off a gate is no problem, unless it is manned (or next to a Citadel - 1,000k off a gate, which seems to be the major consideration) you just exit it and warp to the gate. One that is 100k off a gate is far worse, you have to bounce to get back to the gate or slowboat it. The extended grid only allowed players to abuse a mechanic that had been in the game for years in a way that was unintended - gate camping with Citadels.. Whether you could or couldn't have a bubble pull you 500k prior to the changes is completely irrelevant. It really isn't that hard to work out. READ THE OP. Please leave the insults at home, thanks. Yes, the interaction between bubbles and Citadels is a problem, though only really around gates. They could have changed the anchoring range on Citadels, but that would probably impact other things, create problems if Citadels get moved into each other, and generally make more of a mess than is warranted. You seem to have an issue with CCP changing bubbles to fix this issue, but that makes no sense. It's not breaking anything else, as you yourself point out there's no real advantage to a bubble 1000km off grid vs one 500km off grid, except that one can sit on a Citadel. This is simply the easiest change to make to solve the issue at hand, and as an added bonus it creates more consistency with bubble mechanics, which is nice. So why the hate?
William Legrand-Marx Nemesis Ad Astra RUST415 17	Posted - 2016.08.04 18:33:05 - [253] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) are you saying this is fine, or are you saying you'll fix this some other time? it's not fine btw, it's really awful Why? Should warping to direct gate to gate unscouted not be punished? getting dragged off by a bubble is being punished. getting dragged into the centre of 50 bubbles is just ridiculous, and I think an unintended thing with the grid changes Just limit number of bubbles per system or per user or per corporation. Would it work? There is nothing worthy in this world even if others think it is worth something...
Falconee Dawn Twinstar Universal Services DARKNESS. 0	Posted - 2016.08.04 19:02:59 - [254] - Quote You forget that placing drag bubble allows for fleet traps, solo traps, hunting the cloakies. You ruin part of the gameplay and the dangers of nullsec. You'd rather forbid the anchoring of drag bubbles at a given range from citadels, not prevent us from doing what we like with drag bubbles. Cheers.
Sootsia HIgh Sec Care Bears Brothers of Tangra 11	Posted - 2016.08.04 19:52:20 - [255] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) CCP Larrikin, I think your logic is a tad bit unsound. Consider this, your argument in that a "Citadel is used to (Argument 1, 2) compared to me using 5 supers or carriers, with fighters/fighter bombers, having said fighters/fighter bombers, support fighters, in close proximity to the aforementioned much maligned bubble camp, with my capitals/supers 3k, 4k or even at max targeting range. Am I not "invulnerable" to anyone daring to enter said bubblecamp? Are they not just as dead as to someone actively manning a citadel? How about I use a Titan with the new DD's against a hostile force that comes in via the gates into a actively manned bubble camp? Are they not just as dead and me just as invulnerable? Able to GTFO at a moments notice? Invulnerabilty is merely a matter of degrees and semantics in a citadel, it may be days, in a Titan, it is counted in the DD cooldown and cap recharge time. Any Ship, POS, Citadel with a pilot behind the guns, fighters, whatever form of offensive dps, is potentially capable of destroying a ship that gets caught in the bubble. it is simply a matter of degree as to to the size of the defender of said bubble versus the speed and sized of the offender whom is in a space that is inherently not supposed to be safe. #savethebubble
Lexx Devi Freeport . 7 1	Posted - 2016.08.04 21:08:15 - [256] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lexx Devi wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Problem with citadels was they're immune. Any other kind of gatecamp can at least be engaged. Just because they can be circumvented doesn't make an immune doomsday alright. Immune yes, if its camping you 0on gate kill it of it cant even target you your not in danger. Ok, i hear what your saying. im looking from as many senarios as i can imagine, Attacking, Deffending, Camper, Victim, Owner, Grefer, Rage, Troll, FC, Miner, Transporter. This is my responce: If your sitting on the gate "Your Not Camped" by a citadel, its 1000km of. You faild at scouting yes you get stuck. Still, "your not camped" If you sitt on gate no "your not camped" by citadel. If theres a weapon that reaches from the citadel, if the "doomsday" can, then change the Doomsday. This forum sounds more like a place for controling the game then contributing. Everyone Wants their own view to succed without the tougth of anyone else but their known friends. Sounds like your saying its sitting on 0km off the gate. You do realize the problem was seen as the drag bubbles that pull you out of warp and land you in range of a Citadel's weapons. It is just an example of Devs not taking different use scenarios into consideration when implementing new things. Eve players will abuse any mechanic that is not locked down and like with so many other changes, they nerf everything around the "problem" rather than addressing it in a professional way. Someone was smart enough to work out you could place a drag bubble right next to a Citadel and use it to kill others, Devs are now rectifying something that never should have been possible by nerfing the surrounding mechanics (not the thing that caused the issue, it doesn't get touched and so will still be there for the next exploit finder to use - leading to more nerfs). It would have made far more sense to just increase the range which Citadels could be placed from a gate - But that would have been too easy, so they decided to screw up a perfectly fine mechanic that has been part of gate camping (nulsec life) forever by changing and limiting its use. "You do realize the problem was seen as the drag bubbles that pull you out of warp and land you in range of a Citadel's weapons." Yes, You do realize this isn't necessarily a problem, unless You se it as a problem. According to your response you se it as a issue. Your not ready to live & fly around a "Citadel Camp"? Open Your Mind, They may have seen this scenarios they might not expect so much salty tears of a new feature. CCP might think, "oh well they want empty space & Mindless jumping? Sure they are our blood & lifeforce..." **My point is: keep content, How lazy are humans srsly, Scout so you don't get stuck! What do we do when we find problems? Do we work harder to overcome? Do we adapt to the situation? Do we run blindly in to a bubble, then cry that its unfair. Do we make "example" of how other ppl do things wrong? Are your way the only right way? If you say "Yes" your a blight to the world. If you say "No" we can start discussing how to make this better. Its like sort all over, not paying attention & running without listening to his FCs. I vote +1 to "Make space interesting & full of dangers, not empty"
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition 3080	Posted - 2016.08.04 22:39:25 - [257] - Quote Sootsia wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) CCP Larrikin, I think your logic is a tad bit unsound. Consider this, your argument in that a "Citadel is used to (Argument 1, 2) compared to me using a super or a carrier, with fighters/fighter bombers, having said fighters/fighter bombers, support fighters, in close proximity to the aforementioned much maligned bubble camp, with my capitals/supers 3k, 4k or even at max targeting range. Am I not just as "invulnerable" to anyone daring to enter said bubblecamp? Are they not just as dead as to someone actively manning a citadel? How about I use a Titan with the new DD's against a hostile force that comes in via the gates into a actively manned bubble camp? Are they not just as dead and me just as invulnerable? Able to GTFO at a moments notice? Invulnerability is merely a matter of degrees and semantics, in a citadel, it may be days, in a Titan, it is counted in the DD cool down and possibly cap recharge time. In a carrier/super, its the time it takes to press warp when properly aligned out. Any Ship, POS, Citadel with a pilot behind the guns, fighters, whatever form of offensive dps, is potentially capable of destroying a ship that gets caught in the bubble. it is simply a matter of degree as to to the size of the defender of said bubble versus the speed and size of the offender whom is in a space that is inherently not supposed to be safe. #savethebubble You are battling semantics where there are none. A citadel is quite literally invulnerable between invul periods by design. Super carriers themselves, are not invulnerable. There is literally an attribute or line of code that says "no you cannot damage this object". It's not semantics, it's mechanics.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1123	Posted - 2016.08.04 23:07:40 - [258] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously - That's what you took from that? Is it any wonder Devs stay on Reddit - Most of those who post here are too narrow minded to understand a simple statement - Devs implemented something that requires changing something unrelated because they didn't take the time to see how the changes may be used in unintended ways. Large grids + Citadels created a bad (unforeseen) game mechanic. A simple drag bubble 500K off a gate is no problem, unless it is manned (or next to a Citadel - 1,000k off a gate, which seems to be the major consideration) you just exit it and warp to the gate. One that is 100k off a gate is far worse, you have to bounce to get back to the gate or slowboat it. The extended grid only allowed players to abuse a mechanic that had been in the game for years in a way that was unintended - gate camping with Citadels.. Whether you could or couldn't have a bubble pull you 500k prior to the changes is completely irrelevant. It really isn't that hard to work out. READ THE OP. Please leave the insults at home, thanks. Yes, the interaction between bubbles and Citadels is a problem, though only really around gates. They could have changed the anchoring range on Citadels, but that would probably impact other things, create problems if Citadels get moved into each other, and generally make more of a mess than is warranted. You seem to have an issue with CCP changing bubbles to fix this issue, but that makes no sense. It's not breaking anything else, as you yourself point out there's no real advantage to a bubble 1000km off grid vs one 500km off grid, except that one can sit on a Citadel. This is simply the easiest change to make to solve the issue at hand, and as an added bonus it creates more consistency with bubble mechanics, which is nice. So why the hate? I didn't insult anyone -If you do see an insult there, your seeing something that is only in your imagination. Or a really bad interpretation of the English language. As I said - This change is only valid for one thing, it would have been far easier to just remove Citadels from gates. I can tell you what the next nerf will be - Carriers unable to sit near a Citadel with fighters deployed on a bubble 500K from a gate. Because our Devs have no insight as to how people play the game, they are always going to be n the back foot - Fixing errors in their judgement of what players will do and how they will react. NB; Any bubble 1000K "off grid" is going to do nothing - They must be ON GRID to be effective. I don't have an issue with what devs are doing, I just don't see it as a complete fix. It is simple bandaid. 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.
Sootsia HIgh Sec Care Bears Brothers of Tangra 11	Posted - 2016.08.05 01:19:38 - [259] - Quote Rowells wrote: Sootsia wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) CCP Larrikin, I think your logic is a tad bit unsound. Consider this, your argument in that a "Citadel is used to (Argument 1, 2) compared to me using a super or a carrier, with fighters/fighter bombers, having said fighters/fighter bombers, support fighters, in close proximity to the aforementioned much maligned bubble camp, with my capitals/supers 3k, 4k or even at max targeting range. Am I not just as "invulnerable" to anyone daring to enter said bubblecamp? Are they not just as dead as to someone actively manning a citadel? How about I use a Titan with the new DD's against a hostile force that comes in via the gates into a actively manned bubble camp? Are they not just as dead and me just as invulnerable? Able to GTFO at a moments notice? Invulnerability is merely a matter of degrees and semantics, in a citadel, it may be days, in a Titan, it is counted in the DD cool down and possibly cap recharge time. In a carrier/super, its the time it takes to press warp when properly aligned out. Any Ship, POS, Citadel with a pilot behind the guns, fighters, whatever form of offensive dps, is potentially capable of destroying a ship that gets caught in the bubble. it is simply a matter of degree as to to the size of the defender of said bubble versus the speed and size of the offender whom is in a space that is inherently not supposed to be safe. #savethebubble You are battling semantics where there are none. A citadel is quite literally invulnerable between invul periods by design. Super carriers themselves, are not invulnerable. There is literally an attribute or line of code that says "no you cannot damage this object". It's not semantics, it's mechanics. While you are correct in that there is a (paraphrasing) notification given that a citadel is invulnerable (visual clue by looking at it) The same occurs when you are stuck in a blob of bubbles x kilometers from a gate and you see a super in a system without a citadel 1000k off that same gate, with fighters not only in range, but poking holes in your ships arse, locking and engaging you many many times faster than the citadel can. The mechanics is the same, the super is invulnerable to your feeble attempts to do squat but die in a fire being that you cannot even lock it. (Mechanics) #can't scout get outordieinafire
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition 3080	Posted - 2016.08.05 03:31:30 - [260] - Quote Sootsia wrote: Rowells wrote: Sootsia wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Space Friends, To answer some of the questions asked in this thread so far > Q) Why are you making this change? A) Two reasons, first, you can use a citadel to camp a stop or pull bubble on a gate. Secondly, the current bubble mechanics are a little unintuitive. For example, a stop bubble (that is a bubble in-line before your warp destination) will only work at 1000km or less, while a pull bubble (that is a bubble in-line after your warp destination) will work at any range on grid. Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Q) After this change you'll be able to place a bubble at 499km and another at 501km and you'll land at the edge of the 499km bubble but be in the middle of the 501km bubble! A) Yes. And you can do that now, just at 1000km. You can also do this using Interdictor bubbles (drop a 2nd as ships are landing on the edge), or a Heavy Interdictor fit with both a T1 and T2 bubble (keep the T1 up, put the T2 up as ships land). Q) What about adding killmails for mobile bubbles, and/or adding an expiry timer for mobile bubbles? A) I think these are pretty good ideas. CSM 10 also suggested the expiry timer. We'll see :) CCP Larrikin, I think your logic is a tad bit unsound. Consider this, your argument in that a "Citadel is used to (Argument 1, 2) compared to me using a super or a carrier, with fighters/fighter bombers, having said fighters/fighter bombers, support fighters, in close proximity to the aforementioned much maligned bubble camp, with my capitals/supers 3k, 4k or even at max targeting range. Am I not just as "invulnerable" to anyone daring to enter said bubblecamp? Are they not just as dead as to someone actively manning a citadel? How about I use a Titan with the new DD's against a hostile force that comes in via the gates into a actively manned bubble camp? Are they not just as dead and me just as invulnerable? Able to GTFO at a moments notice? Invulnerability is merely a matter of degrees and semantics, in a citadel, it may be days, in a Titan, it is counted in the DD cool down and possibly cap recharge time. In a carrier/super, its the time it takes to press warp when properly aligned out. Any Ship, POS, Citadel with a pilot behind the guns, fighters, whatever form of offensive dps, is potentially capable of destroying a ship that gets caught in the bubble. it is simply a matter of degree as to to the size of the defender of said bubble versus the speed and size of the offender whom is in a space that is inherently not supposed to be safe. #savethebubble You are battling semantics where there are none. A citadel is quite literally invulnerable between invul periods by design. Super carriers themselves, are not invulnerable. There is literally an attribute or line of code that says "no you cannot damage this object". It's not semantics, it's mechanics. While you are correct in that there is a (paraphrasing) notification given that a citadel is invulnerable (visual clue by looking at it) The same occurs when you are stuck in a blob of bubbles x kilometers from a gate and you see a super in a system without a citadel 1000k off that same gate, with fighters not only in range, but poking holes in your ships arse, locking and engaging you many many times faster than the citadel can. The mechanics is the same, the super is invulnerable to your feeble attempts to do squat but die in a fire being that you cannot even lock it. (Mechanics) #can't scout get outordieinafire Improbable to harm != impossible to harm

Ammzi Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1915	Posted - 2016.08.05 08:07:08 - [261] - Quote ******* hell CCP
Lugia3 Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies. 1509	Posted - 2016.08.05 10:38:40 - [262] - Quote Ammzi pls "CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik Remove Sov!
ISD Decoy isd community communications liaisons 1672	Posted - 2016.08.05 13:02:16 - [263] - Quote I have removed a couple replies. Quote: 23. Post constructively. Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. ISD Decoy Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Cade Windstalker 529	Posted - 2016.08.05 15:14:57 - [264] - Quote Sootsia wrote: CCP Larrikin, I think your logic is a tad bit unsound. Consider this, your argument in that a "Citadel is used to (Argument 1, 2) compared to me using a super or a carrier, with fighters/fighter bombers, having said fighters/fighter bombers, support fighters, in close proximity to the aforementioned much maligned bubble camp, with my capitals/supers 3k, 4k or even at max targeting range. Am I not just as "invulnerable" to anyone daring to enter said bubblecamp? Are they not just as dead as to someone actively manning a citadel? How about I use a Titan with the new DD's against a hostile force that comes in via the gates into a actively manned bubble camp? Are they not just as dead and me just as invulnerable? Able to GTFO at a moments notice? Invulnerability is merely a matter of degrees and semantics, in a citadel, it may be days, in a Titan, it is counted in the DD cool down and possibly cap recharge time. In a carrier/super, its the time it takes to press warp when properly aligned out. Any Ship, POS, Citadel with a pilot behind the guns, fighters, whatever form of offensive dps, is potentially capable of destroying a ship that gets caught in the bubble. it is simply a matter of degree as to to the size of the defender of said bubble versus the speed and size of the offender whom is in a space that is inherently not supposed to be safe. #savethebubble It's not that you're effectively invulnerable to people entering the camp, it's that you're literally invulnerable even if the thing entering the camp is Cyno-bait with the entire combined Super fleets of Eve on the other end of the phone line. If I drop a big fleet on your bubble camp at the very least I can eat your Fighters, even if you kill my bait ship, and come out more or less ahead of the game. I've also removed you from the bubble camp, either because you warped off or because I blew you up. None of that works with a Citadel. Invulnerability is not just "Degrees and semantics". If someone has mitigated their risk to the point that they're hard to kill then that's one thing. They're not actually invulnerable, and they're very vulnerable to being out-played. For example I could scan down your carrier, have a bubble up at his probable safe spot, nail him down and kill him with support. He's not invulnerable. Citadels offer no such counterplay outside of a brief window each week. The Citadel is literally at no risk and in no danger, all other ways of manning a bubble camp are, at best, in theory at very little risk and all are vulnerable to counter play. Sgt Ocker wrote: As I said - This change is only valid for one thing, it would have been far easier to just remove Citadels from gates. I can tell you what the next nerf will be - Carriers unable to sit near a Citadel with fighters deployed on a bubble 500K from a gate. Because our Devs have no insight as to how people play the game, they are always going to be n the back foot - Fixing errors in their judgement of what players will do and how they will react. NB; Any bubble 1000K "off grid" is going to do nothing - They must be ON GRID to be effective. I don't have an issue with what devs are doing, I just don't see it as a complete fix. It is simple bandaid. You were absolutely being insulting. You called the majority of forum users "narrow minded" and heavily implied that you were referring to me explicitly, and you also implied that you think I'm stupid with your first sentence, which was instantly dismissive of my entire previous response. Nope, removing Citadels from gates means they have to figure out where to put them or how to reimburse them, gets into a lot of potential ways things could break, and is generally a much messier solution. Even just moving them off grid gets into questions of where to put them, since there are restrictions on how close Citadels can be to other Citadels. The devs are, by definition and simple math, always going to be running behind the players playing catchup, becuase there are thousands of players trying to break the game and only a few hundred devs maintaining it. This is a fundamental truth in Eve or any other game, MMO or otherwise. You'll probably see the general sentiment passed around more frequently in Computer Security circles though, it doesn't mean the devs are bad or incompetent, it's just simple logic. As for the issue of Carriers on a Citadel. That Carrier has to be vulnerable in order to threaten anyone, it has to give itself a weapons timer, and at the very least if nothing else its Fighters can be killed to the tune of tens of millions of ISK. That's a far better state for the game to be in than literally invulnerable Citadel camps.
Maenth The Thirteen Provinces 26	Posted - 2016.08.05 18:26:36 - [265] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Kahanis Inkunen wrote: The hard cap on bubble drag range makes the following possible: Anchor a t1 small bubble 499 km from a gate and a t2 large 501 km from the gate. When somebody warps to the gate they end up on the edge of a small bubble, deep inside the large. This is also possible now :) That doesn't mean it's good... it's actually weird to have such a hard edge of where it works and where it doesn't. Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 568	Posted - 2016.08.05 18:45:14 - [266] - Quote It also works anywhere within those 500km ;-) Anchor a small bubble, anchor a larger one inside the first; and behold: targets will land at the edge of the small bubble [wicked grin] PROFIT! This is a good thing imho. Light ships often don't even land in the bubble and warp straight off unless you have an svinstapul handy.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3495	Posted - 2016.08.06 01:37:41 - [267] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: It also works anywhere within those 500km ;-) Anchor a small bubble, anchor a larger one inside the first; and behold: targets will land at the edge of the small bubble [wicked grin] PROFIT! This is a good thing imho. Light ships often don't even land in the bubble and warp straight off unless you have an svinstapul handy. Or we could change bubbles to make them even more intuitive and not require such work arounds. But that would make people even more unhappy if they always landed in the middle of a bubble that was within 500km of their exit, even if it wasn't online. Even if it would be far more consistent and understandable.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1123	Posted - 2016.08.06 01:52:47 - [268] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: You were absolutely being insulting. You called the majority of forum users "narrow minded" and heavily implied that you were referring to me explicitly, and you also implied that you think I'm stupid with your first sentence, which was instantly dismissive of my entire previous response. 1; Nope, removing Citadels from gates means they have to figure out where to put them or how to reimburse them, gets into a lot of potential ways things could break, and is generally a much messier solution. Even just moving them off grid gets into questions of where to put them, since there are restrictions on how close Citadels can be to other Citadels. 2; The devs are, by definition and simple math, always going to be running behind the players playing catchup, becuase there are thousands of players trying to break the game and only a few hundred devs maintaining it. This is a fundamental truth in Eve or any other game, MMO or otherwise. You'll probably see the general sentiment passed around more frequently in Computer Security circles though, it doesn't mean the devs are bad or incompetent, it's just simple logic. 3; As for the issue of Carriers on a Citadel. That Carrier has to be vulnerable in order to threaten anyone, it has to give itself a weapons timer, and at the very least if nothing else its Fighters can be killed to the tune of tens of millions of ISK. That's a far better state for the game to be in than literally invulnerable Citadel camps. Stating an opinion - A majority of those using these forums are narrow minded (me included, as my opinion is focused on my agenda) is not an insult to anyone, unless of course you think for some reason your special and a broad based comment was directed at you personally ( I assure you - It wasn't). I would be far more insulted if someone were to say I flip flop on my stance, therefore can have no valid opinion. 1; Where to put them? Anywhere that is not on a gate grid. Grids have a minimum size, can't anchor within X, really wouldn't be hard to do. As long as citadels remain invulnerable while using offensive weapons, they are risk free and should not be allowed to be used to "protect space". Alternately, Devs could make Citadels vulnerable like everything else in Eve - You attack something you get a suspect, weapons or criminal timer. You want to put a Citadel on a gate and use it to kill things, that Citadel should be vulnerable to attack. If Citadels can't be attacked when they are actively attacking - They should not be allowed to activate any offensive weapons. Reimburse them? For what exactly? Restrictions on placement? I don't know of any systems on TQ that are so small they would limit where one wants to place a structure - I know of at least one lowsec system that has 3 Medium Citadels, all within 2K of the same gate. 2; What does Computer security have to do with Devs not considering how players may use mechanics? They wouldn't need to do as much "catchup" (nerfing, balancing, etc) if new additions to the game were tested properly and player ingenuity taken into consideration. Many Devs profess to actually play the game but seem to have little to no understanding of how the game is played (outside PL and NC. of course) 3; The carrier is all but invulnerable if it is engaging 500K from a bubble while sitting on a Citadel undock.. One minute is all it takes to get complete safety. As for losing fighters being an example of "vulnerability" and "far better than..." - Your joking right? Hauler lands in bubble, fighters kill hauler - No risk. Small gang lands in bubble, carrier pilot assesses to much risk - Fighters don't engage but retreat to safe distance - Calculated risk Something lands in bubble that may be able to kill 100 mil worth of fighters while getting killed - Small risk, still isk positive on killboard. Something lands in bubble and begins to burn the 500K to the carrier - Pilot de-agresses and 60 seconds later becomes invulnerable. -- - -- - -- - -- Bottom line of course is, the changes to bubble mechanics only affects a minority of the overall player base. So doesn't really deserve this much attention. Where as the same broken way in which Citadels can be used in lowsec has far wider implications for many more players, that Devs aren't interested in. You don't need bubbles to use Citadels to kill while remaining invulnerable to attack. Citadel mechanics need an overhaul, not just a bandaid fix for nulsec - If it makes an offensive attack, it should become vulnerable to attack. 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.
Cade Windstalker 531	Posted - 2016.08.06 02:14:26 - [269] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Stating an opinion - A majority of those using these forums are narrow minded (me included, as my opinion is focused on my agenda) is not an insult to anyone, unless of course you think for some reason your special and a broad based comment was directed at you personally ( I assure you - It wasn't). I would be far more insulted if someone were to say I flip flop on my stance, therefore can have no valid opinion. 1; a.Where to put them? Anywhere that is not on a gate grid. b.Reimburse them? For what exactly? c.Restrictions on placement? 2; What does Computer security have to do with Devs not considering how players may use mechanics? 3; The carrier is all but invulnerable if it is engaging 500K from a bubble while sitting on a Citadel undock.. One minute is all it takes to get complete safety. -- - -- - -- - -- 4. Bottom line of course is, the changes to bubble mechanics only affects a minority of the overall player base. So doesn't really deserve this much attention. Where as the same broken way in which Citadels can be used in lowsec has far wider implications for many more players, that Devs aren't interested in. You don't need bubbles to use Citadels to kill while remaining invulnerable to attack. Citadel mechanics need an overhaul, not just a bandaid fix for nulsec - If it makes an offensive attack, it should become vulnerable to attack. Given the context of your comment, which was directed at me, I don't think my interpretation here was unreasonable. Your comment was insulting whether you intended it as such or not. Something my parents used to say that's stuck with me "It's not just what you say, it's how others take it." Useful advice IMO. Anyways I accept that you weren't trying to be insulting, so setting that aside... 1a. Yes, but there are a lot of ways to determine this, all of them would make someone unhappy (which may require CCP to spend a lot of time manually moving Citadels) or would cause some sort of bug or issue with placement. 1b. "Or reimburse them". I was trying to indicate that another option would be to simply take them all down and give them back to the players or give them equivalent value, hence the idea of reimbursing. This causes its own issues though. 1c. You can't place a Citadel within 1000km of a gate, another Citadel, or certain other objects. Any method that moves a Citadel would have to avoid violating these rules, making it more complicated than simply pushing them off grid or moving them randomly. Also see above about petitions and similar issues. 2. There's an idea in Computer Security that any determined attacker will eventually break through any defense because there are simply more attackers with more combined resources than there are defenders at any organization. Similarly there are a relatively small number of devs with finite time. The time required to test everything so that there are never any issues with any of it is far to long to be practical. Generally the response to this is "well then just test it more so most issues get caught" to which I respond "They do, that's what we have now." Humans are fallible, there will always be things that get through into the game. This is true for any game or piece of software. Testing mitigates, it doesn't eliminate. Also often the idea that "the devs don't play the game!" comes more from someone feeling like their portion of the game (their playstyle, ect) is being neglected, not from the devs not actually understanding the game. Sure some things that feel obvious to one player get through, but Eve is huge and no one player or Dev can understand literally all of it. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot or lying. 3. I've heard more or less the same thing said about ratting Carriers, and yet those die all the time. There's still a significant difference between something that is literally invulnerable and unkillable and a Carrier that is only very difficult to trap and kill. Besides as we hashed to death in the other thread, the threat posed by a Carrier's fighters is significantly smaller these days, and it's very possible a well equipped solo player or small gang could escape or fight his fighters off. That's very different from a Citadel where that same gang either dies or runs. Probably dies. 4. Not really seeing the issue with Citadels in Low. They can't camp gates, they can only be used defensively, so where's the issue? As for the idea that they should become vulnerable if they attack, that got covered back in the first few pages of the thread. Short answer though? It would make them basically worthless 95% of the time and you would have to lock down who could gun one so hard it's not funny, further reducing their usefulness and ability to actually protect people. The issue here is that an invulnerable structure is being used offensively, not that someone can run back to one when on home terf. People have been able to do that with POSes since they were introduced.
Odette en Aube Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.06 11:01:49 - [270] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free. Hi CCP Larrikin, Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change: 1) as small as possible; 2) as precise as possible. That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles. Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no. In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system. So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping. This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one. The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy. Just my 2c.

Obearoth HuanTao Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness 14	Posted - 2016.08.06 22:00:30 - [271] - Quote You could've made a change to affect bubbels position/effect relative to citadels, which was the issue you sought to resolve. Instead you just went and did yet another "Shoot fish in a barrel with a shotgun" move. This change will have implications you seem to not be aware of, me neither, but this does not feel like a considred move ccp. /me still remembers a fun night where we put up a fishnet in the middle of a system, far far away from anything celestial or "manmade" This will now forever remain a distant memory...
Kebabski No.Mercy Triumvirate. 20	Posted - 2016.08.07 11:26:33 - [272] - Quote Citadels+drag bubbles on gates are risk averse to the max, thank god that is getting nerfed. Problem is the citadel though and not as much the bubble itself. Then again, citadels are still broken aswell. Keb
masternerdguy Inner Shadow Test Alliance Please Ignore 1804	Posted - 2016.08.07 12:27:51 - [273] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Not my fault you didn't understand most of it, it is fine. EVE physics is totally different than real world physics. Drag in vacuum, warp fields based on friction, and violation of the quantum no-communication theorem. Not to mention the inconsistent and bizarre ages and masses when you show info on celestials. And there's a lot more wrong than that. But it's just a game. However, you made some comments about the real world. Lets look at these one by one. First, in an earlier post you're incorrect about the time warp effect. Warp field equations in general relativity allow backwards time travel, so they may not even be physically meaningful once quantum mechanics (which implies backwards time travel is impossible) is combined with general relativity. Secondly, assuming you could create such a warp field it would be trivial to make the locally flat internal region large enough to avoid any harm to the ship. The space inside the field follows a free fall geodesic, so you wouldn't experience any g forces from the acceleration of the warp bubble itself. The edges of the field are obviously extremely dangerous due to tidal forces but I've already addressed that. Finally, under realistic initial conditions you wouldn't be able to just turn on your warp drive and go anywhere. You'd have to send someone ahead of you the slow way (sub-light speeds) to prepare the space the warp field will pass through in advance. Once this is done, you can initiate your warp drive and travel arbitrarily fast towards your destination. This preserves causality since someone had to get there the hard way and set things up for you, so your warp field never gets out of their light cone. Actually, EVE was brilliant here. There is a chronicle about how the Old Man's Star gate was built that involves someone getting there the slow, hard way to build the stargate at that end. That's probably very realistic. So think of a warp field more as a train track than a Star Trek warp drive. Once the track is made any ship that has a warp drive can ride the track to the destination. And that brings us to your point about how a bubble couldn't "catch" a warping vessel. This is incorrect, under realistic conditions a warping vessel probably needs an external influence to disengage the warp field when it reaches the end of the "track". Although there are solutions that don't require a track they have other problems such as requiring tachyonic negative mass (wow!) or permitting backwards time travel. So if anything, under realistic conditions you'd probably have a bubble at the start and end of every warp corridor to mark the end points of the FTL train track elitatwo wrote: You asked for mental gymnastics and I gave it. Yep. elitatwo wrote: I try to explain to my buddies how very exciting subatomic particles are or how to make quantum entanglement work for "long distance calls". This won't work. Although quantum mechanics is non-local, no information can be transmitted this way. It's called the no-communication theorem. Essentially, it's impossible to know whether the state you're reading is the result of the other party influencing the entangled system, or just an artifact of the uncertainty of the measurement. Causality (information carrying events) propagates at the speed of light, and it isn't possible for 2 space-like separated events to influence each other. EVE avoids the no-communication theorem via technobabble The reality is that space-like separated events can't transmit information between them. Remember space-like means there is no future directed curve that joins the events in 4-space. For all practical purposes they are in separate universes until enough time passes that they become light-like and eventually time-like separated (assuming space isn't expanding fast enough between them that they are always space-like separated - there are events in our universe we will never receive due to this). The only way to do FTL communication is to make a shortcut in 4-space between the events. That's how the "track" style warp drive explained earlier works. You're taking two points and creating a shorter path between them, but this requires preparing the length of that path at less than the speed of light the first time you use it. Once you've gotten there the hard way and laid the warp field train track you can send future information along this conduit. That way you aren't violating causality; you've just spent the proper time (and energy) to change the shape of the universe. It isn't really FTL elitatwo wrote: I bet the JPL would be very interested but since I don't have a physics degree, they wouldn't even listen in the first place.. This stuff has been thought of. It won't work for reasons. The future of Star Trek-esque FTL looks bleak. Besides, why not focus on what we know we can do? For example, getting a probe to 5-10% the speed of light is within our technology, although currently prohibitively expensive as a mission. And assuming you can get 1G of constant acceleration (which would be no small feat, such a thing is well beyond our technology!) you could reach practically anywhere in the universe within your lifespan thanks to a combination of length contraction and time dilation. The downside is everyone you know will be long, long, dead by the time you get there making it the ultimate one way ticket. Things are only impossible until they are not.
masternerdguy Inner Shadow Test Alliance Please Ignore 1804	Posted - 2016.08.07 12:32:01 - [274] - Quote And as for the topic at hand, I believe that this change will hurt the sandbox. Anything that makes the game easier for people who won't take reasonable precautions (such as scouts, specialized ships, or pre-existing ping spots) is a bad idea. If you want to travel through or PVP in someone else's space, you should do your due diligence and take reasonable precautions. If you really want to operate freely in someone's space, join their alliance. It's much easier in the long run Things are only impossible until they are not.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 648	Posted - 2016.08.07 12:36:40 - [275] - Quote masternerdguy wrote: Quantum babble Jesus H Christ. I don't know what career you're currently in, but if you're not the Chief of Technobabble (Chief Engineer) for the next Star Trek series, then it's a cardinal sin. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Cade Windstalker 531	Posted - 2016.08.07 22:52:51 - [276] - Quote Patch notes drop and suddenly people want to rush to comment in a thread that's been going for weeks now... Odette en Aube wrote: Hi CCP Larrikin, Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change: 1) as small as possible; 2) as precise as possible. That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles. Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no. In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system. So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping. This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one. The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy. Just my 2c. Lol at someone condecending to a Dev on how to dev... and proposing an in general worse and more disruptive solution. So, small problem with your proposition here. First, the Citadel is still invulnerable for the vast majority of the time. Second, if you change it to make Citadels even more vulnerable (on gates or otherwise) you've caused a bigger problem by making them indefensible. Third, this actually standardizes bubble mechanics, making them generally just a little bit easier for newbies to understand and deal with. There is legitimate reason to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. Punishing that is bad for Citadels and causes a lot of problems with Citadels that people now want to move due to a drastic change in mechanics. Your solution is hardly the smallest reasonable change. Changing bubbles like this impacts almost nothing. At worst some people need to unanchor a bunch of bubbles and move them closer to stuff, but that's at least easy to do and doesn't impact much overall. Obearoth HuanTao wrote: You could've made a change to affect bubbels position/effect relative to citadels, which was the issue you sought to resolve. Instead you just went and did yet another "Shoot fish in a barrel with a shotgun" move. This change will have implications you seem to not be aware of, me neither, but this does not feel like a considred move ccp. /me still remembers a fun night where we put up a fishnet in the middle of a system, far far away from anything celestial or "manmade" This will now forever remain a distant memory... If you can't think of anything then why assume that there is something? If you do have something threads like this are literally the place to post stuff like that. That's why CCP makes these threads, so the community can point out stuff they may have missed...
Calael Nar Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.08.08 15:05:27 - [277] - Quote Good Idea CCP.
Odette en Aube Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.08.15 12:29:30 - [278] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Patch notes drop and suddenly people want to rush to comment in a thread that's been going for weeks now... Lol at someone condecending to a Dev on how to dev... and proposing an in general worse and more disruptive solution. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I wasn't being condescending, I just offered advice. As for me not being a Dev, do you know there are programmers out there who don't work for CCP? And that software development exists outside Eve Online? and even gasp predates it? That someone else developed the tools (OS, python, and much more) the Devs use to make Eve? How do you know it wasn't me? Maybe I know very well 'how to dev'... Now, that is being condescending. See the difference? Anyway, back on the real topic: Quote: So, small problem with your proposition here. First, the Citadel is still invulnerable for the vast majority of the time. Second, if you change it to make Citadels even more vulnerable (on gates or otherwise) you've caused a bigger problem by making them indefensible. Third, this actually standardizes bubble mechanics, making them generally just a little bit easier for newbies to understand and deal with. First. So what? The problem is risk/reward. Citadels are invulnerable for most of the time by design. The idea is just to increase the risk. Second. I'm not sure what to you mean by 'make Citadels even more vulnerable'. Yes I proposed to enlarge the vulnerability window, if that's what you mean. Yes it does make them harder to defend, but I fail to see you logic jump from 'ok' to 'indefensible'. Again it's all about increasing risk, and it's far from making it unmanageable. Third. Well, I won't dispute this argument. I don't think 'making it easier for the newbies' is necessarily a good reason to change things in Eve (since the steep learning curve is part of what makes Eve different from other games), but in this case it isn't bad either. Quote: There is legitimate reason to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. Punishing that is bad for Citadels and causes a lot of problems with Citadels that people now want to move due to a drastic change in mechanics. Your solution is hardly the smallest reasonable change. I never said it's illegitimate to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. I said it's advantageous. And this advantage comes at no price (right now). Quote: Changing bubbles like this impacts almost nothing. At worst some people need to unanchor a bunch of bubbles and move them closer to stuff, but that's at least easy to do and doesn't impact much overall. I'm sorry but given the number of people going so vocal against this change on this thread, I'm going to accept this as your opinion, not as a fact. Fly safe.
Cade Windstalker 541	Posted - 2016.08.15 19:23:45 - [279] - Quote Odette en Aube wrote: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I wasn't being condescending, I just offered advice. As for me not being a Dev, do you know there are programmers out there who don't work for CCP? And that software development exists outside Eve Online? and even gasp predates it? That someone else developed the tools (OS, python, and much more) the Devs use to make Eve? How do you know it wasn't me? Maybe I know very well 'how to dev'... Now, that is being condescending. See the difference? Your overall tone in your original post was incredibly condescending, starting with the bit where you tried to explain basic design philosophy to a professional game dev in a way that suggests that you think they aren't aware of it. Also your example here is sarcasm, not particularly condescending. I also never suggested you weren't a dev, there's certainly a lot of them around the community, I just said you were being condescending and explaining to someone how to do their job (something that is generally considered condescending as an act, almost regardless of phrasing). Last note on this bit, there's a big difference between software development and game development, and the skills sets are no where near completely interchangeable. Odette en Aube wrote: First. So what? The problem is risk/reward. Citadels are invulnerable for most of the time by design. The idea is just to increase the risk. Second. I'm not sure what to you mean by 'make Citadels even more vulnerable'. Yes I proposed to enlarge the vulnerability window, if that's what you mean. Yes it does make them harder to defend, but I fail to see you logic jump from 'ok' to 'indefensible'. Again it's all about increasing risk, and it's far from making it unmanageable. Third. Well, I won't dispute this argument. I don't think 'making it easier for the newbies' is necessarily a good reason to change things in Eve (since the steep learning curve is part of what makes Eve different from other games), but in this case it isn't bad either. The problem here is that someone can camp for zero risk the vast majority of the time. Your suggestion doesn't actually fix that. Your proposed solution is to widen the vulnerability window on structures that already have pretty wide windows. If you were to even multiply a Fortizar's window by 2x you have 12 hours of vulnerability. If you take your suggestions and multiply it by 5-10x you've got more than a day at least, which negates the point of vulnerability windows, which is to allow the defenders some control over when they can be attacked without having to essentially run on-call for their members. As far as learning curve goes, complexity can be good, complexity for the sake of complexity and nothing else is not. Similarly preserving complexity or "the learning cliff" isn't necessarily a good thing for its own sake. I've spent enough time in this game helping out newbies to know that first hand. Odette en Aube wrote: I never said it's illegitimate to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. I said it's advantageous. And this advantage comes at no price (right now). No, it comes at the same price and risk as having a Citadel anywhere else. The problem is the out sized reward it provides, which this change remedies. Odette en Aube wrote: I'm sorry but given the number of people going so vocal against this change on this thread, I'm going to accept this as your opinion, not as a fact. Read through the rest of the thread and find one single instance of something this impacts outside of citadel camping. I've thread the entire thing and there isn't one. The people objecting to this change either have vague and nebulous objections, like yours, with no specific backing beyond "why are you changing bubbles if Citadels are the problem!?!?" or they think Citadel camping is fine and want it preserved in some fashion. The closest anyone's come to a real objection is the hypothetical of a Carrier parked on a Citadel on a gate, but that's still got more risk to it than just the Citadel camp. Personally I'm ambivalent about Citadel camping staying or going, but I can't really fault CCP's logic or their decision on how to address it. It's the most minimally disruptive of the available options, and costs players the least in time, materials, and adjustment in play.
Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 139	Posted - 2016.08.17 18:45:58 - [280] - Quote Zacktar wrote: I think dragging or stopping a warp should be completely removed. It is very risk averse for bubble campers to partake of this cowardly act. Anything landing that may be a threat to them allows them to simply not engage or overwhelm. Fish in a barrel thing. My opinion is to not allow bubbles to affect already in warp ships at all. Two words: Hot Drop Querns wrote: gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. I'd probably say "after a time period" rather than "after downtime;" otherwise, if you anchor a bunch of bubbles in USTZ or before downtime, you get shafted out of many hours of potential life. But yeah, expiration on bubbles is something that would be good. 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.

Infinity Ziona Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2414	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:01:00 - [281] - Quote Odette en Aube wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free. Hi CCP Larrikin, Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change: 1) as small as possible; 2) as precise as possible. That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles. Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no. In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system. So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping. This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one. The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy. Just my 2c. They can be destroyed however they are so cheap they're pointless to destroy. They'll pop another astro as soon as the one you put all the work in to destroy is gone. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 139	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:00:36 - [282] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: They can be destroyed however they are so cheap they're pointless to destroy. They'll pop another astro as soon as the one you put all the work in to destroy is gone. I want your wallet.
Elliniel Anat'al'Ardon Hallowed Antiquity 3	Posted - 2016.08.22 07:44:21 - [283] - Quote Personally, I think we are ready to go back to the original design of the bubbles, that dropped you from warp if your warp path intersected the bubble in any way, including warping from Point A to Point B having a stop bubble 3/4 of a way in between. That would make the entirety of bubbles fun again.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3540	Posted - 2016.08.22 10:43:03 - [284] - Quote Syri Taneka wrote: I want your wallet. The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure)
Cade Windstalker 542	Posted - 2016.08.23 15:12:23 - [285] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Syri Taneka wrote: I want your wallet. The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure) This seems more like "Mythical Man Month" than an actually useful fact. Even if you assume a completely unfitted Astrahaus you can kill one with a couple of dreads and reinforce it fairly quickly. Even taking a fairly generous ISK rate of 200m an hour per person that's still around 10 "man hours" to break even and with fittings it's around 50. It does not take 50 people to kill an Astrehaus, nor does it take 50 man hours unless the enemy defends it reasonably well.
Syri Taneka Un4seen Development Sev3rance 144	Posted - 2016.09.11 02:28:04 - [286] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Syri Taneka wrote: I want your wallet. The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure) This seems more like "Mythical Man Month" than an actually useful fact. Even if you assume a completely unfitted Astrahaus you can kill one with a couple of dreads and reinforce it fairly quickly. Even taking a fairly generous ISK rate of 200m an hour per person that's still around 10 "man hours" to break even and with fittings it's around 50. It does not take 50 people to kill an Astrehaus, nor does it take 50 man hours unless the enemy defends it reasonably well. The actual amount of time it takes to destroy an Astra (any Citi, really) under nominal dps conditions, is 72 minutes. The actual amount of man hours it takes depends on multiple factors, including what level of Citadel (House, Fort, or Keep), where it's located (highsec/non-capital WH or everywhere else), how many people you can field, and how many people the defender can field. In an un/minimally contested scenario where caps have access, a lone player with a Dreadnought or Supercarrier can RF an Astra in the minimum amount of time (or close to it depending on siege cycle duration). In less ideal situations, anywhere from 5 to many tens of players may be needed to provide dps. So you've got a range of 72 - 360+ man-minutes to reasonably destroy an Astra. The best ratting rate I ever managed "quasi-solo" (two accounts, fighter-assisted ratting with salvage and looting by the field ship) was 100M/hr, and I'm told Incursion fleets can top this by a fair margin, but not by enough to make the current ~1.6B cost of a bare Astra in 6 hours or less. Of course, as the fleet size needed to a) hold the field and b) provide sufficient dps against the Citadel increases, the man-hours spent goes up proportionally, and thus the amount of time available to spend making this statement true. Either way, my initial point was simply that if you consider 1.6B "cheap", I want your source of funds, as I certainly don't = P
Codie Rin Comply Or Die 1	Posted - 2016.09.12 16:21:59 - [287] - Quote Im sorry but drag bubbles are the most ridiculous mechanic in the game. They should be removed.
Violet Hurst Fedaya Recon 99	Posted - 2016.10.14 05:28:05 - [288] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free. Noob question here: Citadels camping the ingate are not a problem?
Cade Windstalker 598	Posted - 2016.10.14 15:53:14 - [289] - Quote Violet Hurst wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates? A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free. Noob question here: Citadels camping the ingate are not a problem? Citadels on the in-gate can't aggress you unless you're silly enough to warp into their bubbles leaving the gate, and they can't shoot you as you jump in. I think the bit of information you're missing here may be that Citadels have to be 1000km away from gates (and other Citadels, and a few other things)
erittainvarma Fistful of Finns WE FORM V0LTA 35	Posted - 2016.10.26 07:41:04 - [290] - Quote This 500km drag range solution is treating symptoms, not the cause and just makes game more confusing. Bubbles should drag if your warp ends inside the grid they are and they are in your warp bath. That's easy to understand mechanic, arbitrary km limits what ever they are aren't. Citadels in gate grid are the real problem here. They should have 100 000km range limit to gates instead of 1000km.

Zockhandra Generals Of Destruction Syndicate The Bastion 33	Posted - 2016.12.12 20:09:43 - [291] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A Okay, my first issue with this is the following: I hunt bots quite regularly in Null-sec then report them. In order to hunt them i have to not only contend with the new citadels being used to pop the bubbles i place to catch them. But also the threat of someone manning pos guns and shooting me on the pos traps i set too. I personally feel like the distance should be at least 1000km to allow such maneuvers to be made. Considering the Introduction of Citadels and Industrial arrays, it's become much harder to hunt people using pre-set traps and fast warp sabres. Due in most-part to the Threat of the Citadels 250km SCRAM and its (low) damage. You are Trying to solve Issues with Citadels camping gates using bubbles and hurting every other profession that uses them in the Process...... Why don't you actually look at restricting how close you can anchor a Citadel to a gate OR at the very least give the hunters that you seem to despise so much, something else they can use to trap prey. Because this is getting beyond a joke. You have introduced more than 8 Mechanics in the past year that adversely effect the ability to hunt in null-sec (Including the idea of a ship Decloaking array?!). You have not even suggested any kind of compensation mechanics for these new 'features'. Can you please stop racing ahead before considering the effects on other professions. Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1273	Posted - 2016.12.12 21:29:19 - [292] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A Okay, my first issue with this is the following: I hunt bots quite regularly in Null-sec then report them. In order to hunt them i have to not only contend with the new citadels being used to pop the bubbles i place to catch them. But also the threat of someone manning pos guns and shooting me on the pos traps i set too. I personally feel like the distance should be at least 1000km to allow such maneuvers to be made. Considering the Introduction of Citadels and Industrial arrays, it's become much harder to hunt people using pre-set traps and fast warp sabres. Due in most-part to the Threat of the Citadels 250km SCRAM and its (low) damage. You are Trying to solve Issues with Citadels camping gates using bubbles and hurting every other profession that uses them in the Process...... Why don't you actually look at restricting how close you can anchor a Citadel to a gate OR at the very least give the hunters that you seem to despise so much, something else they can use to trap prey. Because this is getting beyond a joke. You have introduced more than 8 Mechanics in the past year that adversely effect the ability to hunt in null-sec (Including the idea of a ship Decloaking array?!). You have not even suggested any kind of compensation mechanics for these new 'features'. Can you please stop racing ahead before considering the effects on other professions. Considering Citadels need to be manned to catch you with the 250km scram or pop the bubbles you set (why are you setting bubbles that close when you have 500km in which to set them) - Is it bots you are hunting? Or just some unfortunate mining gang you want to solo kill with a fast warping Sabre? Same goes for pos traps, up to 500km puts you well out of the range pos guns can hit you. I think you just need to rethink your strategy. (try placing your preset traps outside citadel and pos range, 500km gives you lots of options) 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.
Zockhandra Generals Of Destruction Syndicate The Bastion 33	Posted - 2016.12.12 21:59:11 - [293] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Zockhandra wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A Okay, my first issue with this is the following: I hunt bots quite regularly in Null-sec then report them. In order to hunt them i have to not only contend with the new citadels being used to pop the bubbles i place to catch them. But also the threat of someone manning pos guns and shooting me on the pos traps i set too. I personally feel like the distance should be at least 1000km to allow such maneuvers to be made. Considering the Introduction of Citadels and Industrial arrays, it's become much harder to hunt people using pre-set traps and fast warp sabres. Due in most-part to the Threat of the Citadels 250km SCRAM and its (low) damage. You are Trying to solve Issues with Citadels camping gates using bubbles and hurting every other profession that uses them in the Process...... Why don't you actually look at restricting how close you can anchor a Citadel to a gate OR at the very least give the hunters that you seem to despise so much, something else they can use to trap prey. Because this is getting beyond a joke. You have introduced more than 8 Mechanics in the past year that adversely effect the ability to hunt in null-sec (Including the idea of a ship Decloaking array?!). You have not even suggested any kind of compensation mechanics for these new 'features'. Can you please stop racing ahead before considering the effects on other professions. Considering Citadels need to be manned to catch you with the 250km scram or pop the bubbles you set (why are you setting bubbles that close when you have 500km in which to set them) - Is it bots you are hunting? Or just some unfortunate mining gang you want to solo kill with a fast warping Sabre? Same goes for pos traps, up to 500km puts you well out of the range pos guns can hit you. I think you just need to rethink your strategy. (try placing your preset traps outside citadel and pos range, 500km gives you lots of options) Yes.... as stated i hunt bots. And whilst i DO anchor bubbles outside of the 350km scram range on Citadels, Bots have started using pilots to SIT IN THEM, and shoot anything within their enormous weapons range. Meaning you cant camp the Citadel with bubbles because it gets shot. Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Cade Windstalker 633	Posted - 2016.12.12 22:37:36 - [294] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: Okay, my first issue with this is the following: I hunt bots quite regularly in Null-sec then report them. In order to hunt them i have to not only contend with the new citadels being used to pop the bubbles i place to catch them. But also the threat of someone manning pos guns and shooting me on the pos traps i set too. I personally feel like the distance should be at least 1000km to allow such maneuvers to be made. Considering the Introduction of Citadels and Industrial arrays, it's become much harder to hunt people using pre-set traps and fast warp sabres. Due in most-part to the Threat of the Citadels 250km SCRAM and its (low) damage. You are Trying to solve Issues with Citadels camping gates using bubbles and hurting every other profession that uses them in the Process...... Why don't you actually look at restricting how close you can anchor a Citadel to a gate OR at the very least give the hunters that you seem to despise so much, something else they can use to trap prey. Because this is getting beyond a joke. You have introduced more than 8 Mechanics in the past year that adversely effect the ability to hunt in null-sec (Including the idea of a ship Decloaking array?!). You have not even suggested any kind of compensation mechanics for these new 'features'. Can you please stop racing ahead before considering the effects on other professions. Or, and this is just a thought, CCP have in fact considered the impact of this on your profession(s), you just don't like the result but they're perfectly fine with it. Not every nerf needs a corresponding buff, sometimes something just needs nerfing, or more available counter-play against it, or more interesting and varied gameplay. Personally I can't say I have much sympathy for you here considering what you're describing sounds like the absolute laziest hunting method ever. And yeah, 500km is plenty for you to set your bubbles outside of range of Citadels and POSes. If you're still having issues I don't know what to tell you here. I do have to wonder how big of an issue this can actually be for you, given that it apparently took you almost 2 months after this was deployed to come and complain about it, and in that time there's been basically no ill effects from this change beyond the very much intended removal of Citadel traps on gates. Oh and Citadels are limited in how close they can be anchored to a gate, the limit is 1000km.
Zockhandra Generals Of Destruction Syndicate The Bastion 33	Posted - 2016.12.12 22:49:12 - [295] - Quote - Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Kittel Jr Kitlactic Industries 0	Posted - 2016.12.16 21:16:39 - [296] - Quote All anchorable bubbles and interdiction sphere probe's should be removed. Anchorable bubbles are lazy, drag bubbles shouldn't even exist, pulling ship past the warp collapsed warp landing is probably a bug they decided to leave in. Playing the game should be rewarded! not lazy anchorable or bubbles... Interdiction should be done via HIC style ship bubbles, make the interdictors this was as well, bubble from ships only.
Kittel Jr Kitlactic Industries 0	Posted - 2016.12.16 21:38:54 - [297] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A ... You have introduced more than 8 Mechanics in the past year that adversely effect the ability to hunt in null-sec (Including the idea of a ship Decloaking array?!). You have not even suggested any kind of compensation mechanics for these new 'features'. Can you please stop racing ahead before considering the effects on other professions. Hey the decloak array is a great idea, if you own space you should be able to effectively control it (including locked gates (hackable) & taxed gates). Alternatively cloaks should use fuel (heavy water) every 30-60 seconds or so (with new skills, duration per fuel and fuel per use). Want to stay cloaked, you need fuel, so even with max skills and full of fuel max (without reloading the cloak) cloak is 1 hour, that fixes the whole problem, activation equals fuel use as well.
Rain6637 NulzSec 34574	Posted - 2016.12.16 22:11:26 - [298] - Quote I think it should be more like you need fuel just to fly and warp should require heavy water Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cade Windstalker 636	Posted - 2016.12.18 19:38:21 - [299] - Quote Kittel Jr wrote: All anchorable bubbles and interdiction sphere probe's should be removed. Anchorable bubbles are lazy, drag bubbles shouldn't even exist, pulling ship past the warp collapsed warp landing is probably a bug they decided to leave in. Playing the game should be rewarded! not lazy anchorable or bubbles... Interdiction should be done via HIC style ship bubbles, make the interdictors this was as well, bubble from ships only. This is incorrect, drag bubbles is an entirely intentional feature. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad gameplay. Bubbles exist, learn to live with them.
Naye Nathaniel New.Lab.Era 0	Posted - 2016.12.20 14:44:39 - [300] - Quote It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point -

Dracos Delfinten Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.01.12 21:36:09 - [301] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A To me, it feels like bubbles are a poorly designed game mechanic made purely for pirates which is entirely unrealistic. Considering the fact that in any real universe which had people capable of making space ships, probes, and drones there would be the ability to see these camps without putting yourself in harm's way, no one would ever get caught in a bubble without failing to look before leaping. Instead, we have to completely avoid them or send in a fleet to destroy them. How is that fun for anyone but gankers? Also, why can't we manually set destinations (not having to create bookmarks) instead of being forced to warp to a location within 100km? I feel like this game heavily favors pirating and ganking, and that's a huge contributor to people avoiding this game. I understand that pirates are realistic, especially with the current state of society, but you should be able to realistically avoid them as well. If you spent more time putting things in your game for people to interact with & be rewarded by and less time on forced PVP & convoluted interfaces, your subscriber base would grow exponentially.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3498	Posted - 2017.01.13 11:34:51 - [302] - Quote .... I want you to go and count just how many tools you have to avoid bubbles in eve. I'll even be nice and say you don't have to count alternate routes BLOPS Hauler
Infinity Ziona Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2516	Posted - 2017.01.13 12:17:32 - [303] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - Not sure how the insta-locking before cloak thing happened. It used to be that if you had a sub 2.0 second align time you could not be locked and with cloak you could not be locked. Now it does appear that even with both of the above, the lock can sneak in. Not sure how I feel about that, good in a way in that I think cloaking should not give 100% immunity but at the same time it creates major issues for cloakies + min / maxxers pushing limits. I've been insta-locked and killed by Onyx's twice, both in Rancer, while in a hound. Given the hound is entirely reliant on cloak for defence its a bit much to remove that defence without the attacker needing a frigate sized ship and bubbles to do so If the problem is scan resolution being buffed, its now quite easy to get a few k in scan res, theres probably a need to put a cap on scan res to avoid the issue otherwise its a waste of time flying paper thing cloakies and youre better off flying a cloaky regengu and just crashing the gate if you get locked. Thats the other option so there are other options so whatever CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18540	Posted - 2017.01.15 07:05:18 - [304] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3517	Posted - 2017.01.16 02:35:06 - [305] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems. That's not true, that's impossible! BLOPS Hauler
Infinity Ziona Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2517	Posted - 2017.01.16 08:03:27 - [306] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems. That's not true, that's impossible! Yeah its not true lol. The opposite. First time I ever met a citadel bubble was in 7RM. Landed right next to a citadel and got insta locked and popped by a carrier with a network sensor array. 7RM is definitely not a ratter system. There are citidels on almost every gate in some regions, they're not there for ratting lol. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18541	Posted - 2017.01.16 14:48:34 - [307] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems. That's not true, that's impossible! Search your feelings Lugh, you know it to be true.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18541	Posted - 2017.01.16 14:53:00 - [308] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems. That's not true, that's impossible! Yeah its not true lol. The opposite. First time I ever met a citadel bubble was in 7RM. Landed right next to a citadel and got insta locked and popped by a carrier with a network sensor array. 7RM is definitely not a ratter system. There are citidels on almost every gate in some regions, they're not there for ratting lol. ratting defences don't start in the ratting system, these things started at the borders. Back before the imperium was turfed out of the north I had to pick my way through an entire region of these things before I got to an fcon ratting system.
Infinity Ziona Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2541	Posted - 2017.01.17 00:03:53 - [309] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: It's funny how many tears I read here - mostly because when CCP touch a pirates or gangers toys now they cry like hell. Mostly laughing when a 80% of Eve players are carebears and want to taste any kind of activity - now they can't cause of the reason above Pirates - Gangers etc; CCP already changed a lot of game mechanic; Mostly im pissed off about instalocking ship even when you are in cloaky one (Twice i can't turn on cloak cause I were targeted before it went on and popped); This stuff shouldnt be made for Gangers - it should be done for warfare reason; Right now this game is something like Give or Take - when "Take" is for Gangers, and Give nothing to others. Hope so you got my point - This bubble on citadel tactic was mostly used by ratters to defend their systems. That's not true, that's impossible! Yeah its not true lol. The opposite. First time I ever met a citadel bubble was in 7RM. Landed right next to a citadel and got insta locked and popped by a carrier with a network sensor array. 7RM is definitely not a ratter system. There are citidels on almost every gate in some regions, they're not there for ratting lol. ratting defences don't start in the ratting system, these things started at the borders. Back before the imperium was turfed out of the north I had to pick my way through an entire region of these things before I got to an fcon ratting system. lol CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Imustbecomfused The Final Resistance ChaosTheory. 99	Posted - 2017.03.15 00:21:57 - [310] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hi Space Friends, The current range that warp bubbles are effective (how far from your destination they can pull you out of warp) is a little unclear. This has lead to some 'interesting' possibilities, such as bubble camping a gate with a citadel. With the 118.7 patch, we are considering changing the maximum distance for a warp bubble (mobile, probe or hictor bubble) to effect a warp to be 500km. This means only warp disruption bubbles that are 500km in-front or behind your warp destination, which are inline with your warp, will pull you out of warp early or drag you. What do you think? We'd love your feedback! Update 2016-07-04 - Q&A why the **** are you messing with things that already work? why not fix something broken or make a new game? im just confused as to why the insanity in changing the game SO DRAMATICALLY, this is why people just get ya know, frustrated and turn off eve online... seriously, you should consider just like chilling out and working on parts that NEED improving. wtf ccp

Cade Windstalker 1095	Posted - 2017.03.15 02:37:55 - [311] - Quote Imustbecomfused wrote: why the **** are you messing with things that already work? why not fix something broken or make a new game? im just confused as to why the insanity in changing the game SO DRAMATICALLY, this is why people just get ya know, frustrated and turn off eve online... seriously, you should consider just like chilling out and working on parts that NEED improving. wtf ccp This was changed... six months ago? WTF, lol
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 75	Posted - 2017.04.21 17:01:32 - [312] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Eve is sandbox - players in nullsec should be allowed to do as they like. I like the idea of "really" owning space too. Doesn't feel like it when every random or people you have set to red can use infrastructure in your system. Camping a stargate with tethered ships on an immune object is too cheesy thou. Wait for the introduction of player built stargates (eta 2057). Anthar Thebess wrote: i hate bubbles blubblublbulbulblub
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 211	Posted - 2017.05.15 12:35:08 - [313] - Quote Can you chain bubbles to get around the 500km restriction? Place one at 500km from the gate and then one 1000km (500km from the first one) Which bubble do you land in?
Lugh Crow-Slave 3920	Posted - 2017.05.15 22:49:17 - [314] - Quote Henry Plantgenet wrote: Can you chain bubbles to get around the 500km restriction? Place one at 500km from the gate and then one 1000km (500km from the first one) Which bubble do you land in? Do.... do you not even know how drag bubbles work? You land I the first one your warp vector would cross BLOPS Hauler
Cade Windstalker 1537	Posted - 2017.05.17 19:13:00 - [315] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Henry Plantgenet wrote: Can you chain bubbles to get around the 500km restriction? Place one at 500km from the gate and then one 1000km (500km from the first one) Which bubble do you land in? Do.... do you not even know how drag bubbles work? You land I the first one your warp vector would cross The answer to your question Henry is no, you can't. If you put one bubble at 500km and one at 1000km you'll land in the 500km one every time no matter which side of the gate it's on. Lugh I think he's talking about regular bubbles not drag ones. So X < target ----------500km---- 1st bubble ------- another 500km ------ 2nd bubble
Xzanos Fools Resurrection 14	Posted - 2017.06.30 13:08:56 - [316] - Quote gr33nCO wrote: you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues. Horrible idea... *activates thermal hardeners for incoming flame
Xzanos Fools Resurrection 14	Posted - 2017.06.30 13:10:54 - [317] - Quote erittainvarma wrote: This 500km drag range solution is treating symptoms, not the cause and just makes game more confusing. Bubbles should drag if your warp ends inside the grid they are and they are in your warp bath. That's easy to understand mechanic, arbitrary km limits what ever they are aren't. Citadels in gate grid are the real problem here. They should have 100 000km range limit to gates instead of 1000km. Not Scouting is the real problem here. *activates thermal hardeners for incoming flame


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.