Muon Farstrider
Partial Safety
42
   |
Posted - 2017.02.01 20:52:54 -
[1] - Quote
My opinion: interdiction nullification should not be able to be combined with strong combat ability. I don't think you should be able to have such a potent tool for strategic mobility on a hull that also has strong on-grid combat presence, as it upsets the balance between strategic and tactical combat roles.
For t3 cruisers, this would entail tweaks to the attributes of the nullification subsystem. I am not intimately familiar with the details of t3 cruiser systems, but if the current attributes of said subsystems are insufficiently restrictive, more drawbacks should be added - perhaps reductions in fitting, or lock range/scanres, or others.
For interceptors, I would, as frequently suggested, split the two classes of interceptor further by removing nullification from the 'combat' interceptors. However, I would combine this with other tweaks to the class, in order to help them better fulfill their roles.
What does the name 'Interceptor' imply? At least to me, the answer is 'mobility', but there are two senses of that word. First, mobility on *strategic* scales - quickly and easily moving from one grid to another, or one system to another. Second, mobility on *tactical* scales - quickly and easily moving from one location to another over short distances. Currently, both classes of interceptor have a mismash of tools for manipulating both strategic and tactical mobility. What I would do is draw a distinction between the two classes along this line - fleet interceptors are masters of strategic mobility, while combat interceptors are masters of tactical mobility.
At its core, interdiction nullification is largely a strategic mobility tool. It allows for freedom in accessing critical fixed locations on grids such as stations or stargates, and allows for freedom in moving between grids. In other words, it allows for much freer movement onto, off of, and between grids, but does (relatively) less for tactical-scale in-combat maneuvering. By contrast, the tool for tactical mobility is the MWD, rather than the warp drive.
Fleet interceptors thus would retain their nullification, as this strategic mobility is ideally suited to their roles of scout and 'initial tackle'. They would similarly retain their point range and cap use bonuses; removing enemy strategic mobility from long ranges, as the flipside of their own strategic mobility. However, they would lose their bonus to *scram* range, since the benefit of scrams over points is a *tactical* mobility benefit - shutting off MWDs. They could still use them, of course, but only the same as everyone else. Thus, they remain well suited to the 'interceptor' role, but in a strategic sense of quickly reaching the location of their target and stopping their strategic movement.
Meanwhile, combat interceptors get a significant rework to focus on tactical-scale mobility. They lose interdiction nullification, since it is a strategic tool rather than a tactical one, and they also lose the tackle capacitor use bonus as it is mostly relevant for points rather than scrams/webs. Rather, they replace these with bonuses relevant to MWD use, both their own and others. First, they gain a 50% role bonus to scram (but not point) range, and second they gain a 33% role bonus to agility while using an MWD. (That is, a 33% reduction in the intertia modifier, which almost exactly eliminates the MWD mass-induced agility *reduction* but does not *increase* agility.) This renders them the masters of movement at *less* than the 150km warp limit - they're already quick, but their MWDs now get up to speed faster and turn on a dime, and they can shut off the MWDs of other ships at longer than normal (but still not HIC-esque) ranges. This renders them well suited to the 'interceptor' role their name suggests, but in an on-grid sense rather than a strategic one. (One might even also reduce their warp speed somewhat, if you *really* want to enforce a distinction between the two classes.)
As for bubbles, the problem is the infinite-duration no-maintenance eye-burning gate bubblewraps. I do think that permanent 'terrain modifications' have their place in eve, but the current implementation lends itself to abuse. As such, I would modify anchorable bubbles as follows.
Current bubbles switch to the modern 'drag from cargo hold' deployment system, and gain a duration. The size wouldn't change duration (the advantage of those should be *size*, not longevity), but tech level would - I'm thinking something like 8 hours for a t1, and 12 for a t2. Exact numbers variable, but the point is to be long enough that they last through an op but less than a day. T1 bubbles cannot be scooped and self-destruct when their duration expires, while T2 bubbles can be scooped at any time and merely burn out when their duration expires (though they must be repaired in a station before they can be re-deployed). They should also have somewhat less HP.
I would then add a new class of 'strategic bubbles' that are anchorable structures tied to sov levels. You can only anchor them in your space, and they can't be anchored within a certain range of each other (perhaps 100km or something like that). They also require fuel - not much, they should be fairly cheap to maintain, the point though being that you *do* have to maintain them every day or two. However, they are permanent, have even more HP than a current large bubble, and gain a reinforcement timer as long as they're active (though they do shut down when reinforced).
Thus, you can still use cheap, disposable bubbles to set up camps, block routes during ops, etc, but you can't use them to permanently blanket a gate with infinity bubbles covering everywhere within 100km. However, as long as you're actually around to feed it fuel you *can* still cover said gate with *one* bubble (and it should be equivalent in size to a t2 large, if not a bit bigger), and it's even more resilient than a current bubble. |