EVE Search - Nullification and Interdiction

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nullification and Interdiction

» 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 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 733	Posted - 2017.03.27 07:13:23 - [331] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: No point of using T3 when other cruisers will be better at given tasks. There is when you're logistically strangled and you can bring one ship that can be refitted for fifteen different roles. and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C, it's good in theory but unhandy on field. If you fit T3C for combat (rig it) it won't be as good as natural Ewar cruiser when you switch to Ewar. T3C cruisers have the mobility with proper subsystem but whole switching on the field seems very niche gameplay. I never see small gangs full of T3C with different roles. They usually working like brick tank fastlocking tacklers. The element of suprise is in what role T3C is fitted not the "jump jump jump oh **** hot gate, wait guys I'll go refit my tengu while you die in balls of fire..." swiss army knife. I have very small pvp experience but I know what small gangs are flying because they are hunting me. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville If you need a scout mail me.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.27 07:59:34 - [332] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C, It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should. 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."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 734	Posted - 2017.03.27 09:00:46 - [333] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C, It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should. So something like T3D? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville If you need a scout mail me.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.27 09:17:38 - [334] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should. So something like T3D? More like a buff to the fairly useless subsystems it already has, and a HUGE nerf to the overpowered combat capabilities. Tactical Destroyers have nothing but combat settings; their Swiss Army Knife potential is marginally greater than that of a tech 1 destroyer and only due to their utility high slots. 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."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18782	Posted - 2017.03.27 12:01:42 - [335] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: and how many times you or person you know refitted T3 on field? If you want ECM boat you will rig it for ECM purpose that will benefit the small gang the most. I don't think people saying that T3C has swiss army knife capabilites acutally flying T3C, It doesn't have those capabilities. I'm saying it should. So something like T3D? More like removing the rig slots.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 734	Posted - 2017.03.27 12:45:19 - [336] - Quote baltec1 wrote: More like removing the rig slots. It would make sense in terms of multipurpose options of the hulls but 3X rigs slots may give very good bonuses if fitted correctly and that would have to be compensated somewhere else. Well I never try rigless fit. I wonder if that would be compromise to overtanking for example. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville If you need a scout mail me.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.27 19:06:05 - [337] - Quote baltec1 wrote: More like removing the rig slots. It would be easier to balance them without rigs getting in the way, but I really don't think any rig setups on strategic cruisers will be scary once subsystems are even in the ballpark of the rest of EVE. 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."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 734	Posted - 2017.03.28 06:43:35 - [338] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It would be easier to balance them without rigs getting in the way, but I really don't think any rig setups on strategic cruisers will be scary once subsystems are even in the ballpark of the rest of EVE. For balance I would merge electronics and engineering subsystems into hull. Then reduce defensive and propulsion subsystems to three from four. Offensive subsystems would determine the role of the hull. Remove SP loss. Removable rigs but at a cost (% of hull price maybe). "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville If you need a scout mail me.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18785	Posted - 2017.03.28 09:16:34 - [339] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: More like removing the rig slots. It would make sense in terms of multipurpose options of the hulls but 3X rigs slots may give very good bonuses if fitted correctly and that would have to be compensated somewhere else. Well I never try rigless fit. I wonder if that would be compromise to overtanking for example. It fixes two issues. The first being you cant make them that adaptable while you have rigs locking them into a role, the second is the rigs are a big part of what makes them overpowered. One of the other areas that will probably see a big change should be the number of bonuses these ships get. Technically you are getting 12 bonuses on these ships which is a downright nightmare to balance so I'm also expecting subsystems to be radically different. I also expect SP loss to go in the bin too.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 755	Posted - 2017.04.10 12:15:35 - [340] - Quote So they want to move cloak to defensive subsystems (cloak tank) and lowering targeting range for the nullification subsystem. I didn't see any replacement for emergent locus analyzer. Basically what I proposed. Still no word about SP loss. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Blossom Rivers The Scope Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2017.04.11 11:52:20 - [341] - Quote Nullification in itself is not a 'bad thing', the fact that there is discussion about it so far as combat is concerned is evidence that there are issues around how it is balanced out. Nullification should come with some drawbacks considering the huge advantage that is gained. At this year's Fanfest I noted the main reason for nullification by the Devs was mobility. I do not disagree with their view on ensuring mobility for capsuleers especially those in deeper parts of space. What I am concerned with is giving this mobility to powerful PVP ships. Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive. Nullification for a scout ships is important as no-one is going to engage in a fight when the enemy fleet size is unknown and ceptors fulfil an important function in this regard. However making their align time below what is theoretically possible to catch is a problem. There should be no absolute safety in Eve, a ship should not be impossible to catch, if reasonable effort is made. A solution would be to limit the ships align time to above 2 seconds, and for pilots to rely more on fitting warp core stabilisers to prevent being caught. The freedom of not being caught should come at a price, and the penalties that come with warp core stabs should prove enough. Additionally if enough fast tackle is present (enough warp core destabilisation strength) the ship can be caught. What is more of a concern is when nullification is granted to powerful PVP ships such as T3 Cruisers, particularly when nullification is combined with cloaking, which effectively makes a powerful PVP ship that is also impossible to catch. Allowing the pilot complete freedom to engage entirely on his own terms (i.e. low risk for high rewards). This is obviously not balanced, and when a powerful combat ship is undocked, the pilot should accept a certain amount of risk. A solution would be to make it so that a such a ship can either fit nullification or a cloak but not both. These are 2 of the most powerful abilities a ship can possess in game, and combining them onto a PVP ship is quite an imbalance. They are after all abilities aimed at escaping combat, freedom to warp and then to cloak and prevent being scanned down. Another solution would be to increase the align time of the ship when fitting both, so that there is a fair chance at decloaking the nullified+cloaked T3 Cruiser. T3 cruisers are very powerful combat ships without nullification and cloak, they don't need the extra help. I do believe in the necessity for travel for capsuleers, but if mobility is an issue this should be addressed separate of combat. The issue is capsuleer mobility, not combat mobility, that's what jump bridges are for. A nullified shuttle or nullified+cloaked T3 Transport ship can fulfil this role, since a transport ship of this type would not be involved in combat as an aggressor. I do find it odd that a combat cruiser is capable of being nullified and cloaked, and yet simple means of transport lack the same. Mobility in Eve can be improved separate of PVP combat ships, and if used together on a single PVP ship should have a counter, it is after all a combat ship, nullification and cloak are aimed at avoiding combat.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 755	Posted - 2017.04.11 12:18:34 - [342] - Quote Blossom Rivers wrote: snip I think CCP want to adress some of your concerns. Covert subsystem will be moved to defense group (so no more high amount of tank on covert ships) and nullify subsystem will receive targeting range nerf. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 73	Posted - 2017.04.13 15:05:57 - [343] - Quote Blossom Rivers wrote: tl:dr As the devs said, nullification should be kept simple to understand and use, no one likes to have rules with exceptions, and exceptions to those exceptions. So imho it should work like it works today, but with bigger drawbacks. Especially on the align/ warpout time part. It's impossible to target while the target is cloaking and if it warp outs in 3 seconds it's also very hard to get a decloak, lock and scram in that time. 1-2 second penalty on align time would be enough to allow a capable interceptor pilot to do something.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 315	Posted - 2017.04.14 22:13:34 - [344] - Quote Blossom Rivers wrote: Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive. The only "combat" that is prevented is the lazy bubble campers that cover a 100km radius in bubbles and insta-pop anything that jumps through the gate without a covops cloak and/or bubble immunity. And that's a boring kind of combat that doesn't need to be encouraged. In all interesting forms of combat cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed.
Blossom Rivers The Scope Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2017.04.18 09:03:59 - [345] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: Blossom Rivers wrote: Providing combat ships with abilities which prevent combat is counterproductive. The only "combat" that is prevented is the lazy bubble campers that cover a 100km radius in bubbles and insta-pop anything that jumps through the gate without a covops cloak and/or bubble immunity. And that's a boring kind of combat that doesn't need to be encouraged. In all interesting forms of combat cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed. With the changes which now generate killmails for bubbles, and hopefully a requirement to refuel/reactivate bubbles or have them decay as suggested previously in this thread, the bubble issue will hopefully no longer pose an issue for much longer. We're heading in the right direction with the bubbles. Bubbles aside, I am astounded at the comment "cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed". Obviously myself and most other players in Eve seems to be doing it wrong! If you could please upload a video showing how you go about uncloaking and tackling a T3 Cruiser in less than 4 seconds off a gate "normally", please do so. I for one would love to see it, if you don't upload we'll just accept you comment as utter nonsense. (Also I wouldn't consider a video with 20 Dramiels spread around a gate trying to uncloak the T3C as "normally", since that would be far from normal.) I'm confident in you, I'm sure you'll be able to manage since its such a normal thing to do :D
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 319	Posted - 2017.04.18 09:30:43 - [346] - Quote Blossom Rivers wrote: With the changes which now generate killmails for bubbles, and hopefully a requirement to refuel/reactivate bubbles or have them decay as suggested previously in this thread, the bubble issue will hopefully no longer pose an issue for much longer. We're heading in the right direction with the bubbles. This is a very minimal change. Generating killmails changes nothing unless you're one of those sad people that is obsessed with killboard stats, whether or not some out of game site acknowledges that my bubble is destroyed the bubble is still gone. And I'm not going to bother killing one just because some out of game site says "good job, here's your participation trophy for killing a bubble". Having bubbles decay (which needs to happen on a much faster timer) is similarly meaningless. It's a great thing for cleaning up the abandoned trash that can make 0.0 travel pointlessly annoying, but we're talking about active camps here. It's trivially easy to reset the clock on bubbles if you're actively using them and an active camp is never going to have its bubbles expire. In short, 99.99999% of the time bubbles are going to work exactly as they have been in this context. Quote: Bubbles aside, I am astounded at the comment "cloak + nullifier T3s can be tackled normally and killed". Obviously myself and most other players in Eve seems to be doing it wrong! If you could please upload a video showing how you go about uncloaking and tackling a T3 Cruiser in less than 4 seconds off a gate "normally", please do so. I for one would love to see it, if you don't upload we'll just accept you comment as utter nonsense. Apparently you didn't read my post, because I said that they can be caught in all interesting forms of combat. A 20-man bubble camp insta-popping every ship that jumps in is not interesting combat, and I'm not going to feel any sympathy for the people who feel entitled to lazy killmail farming when they happen to miss a ship. But in the context of interesting combat cloak/nullifier T3s can be caught just fine. If they're engaging in combat they aren't cloaked, and the nullifier doesn't prevent you from tackling them with a conventional scram. The travel fit helps in getting to your desired fight without getting caught, but it doesn't help you once the fight begins.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18862	Posted - 2017.04.19 00:41:53 - [347] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: But in the context of interesting combat cloak/nullifier T3s can be caught just fine. No they can't, thats why everyone used to send bonus T3C through gates before a fleet fight. They were guaranteed to get through no matter how many people are on the gate. If you want to go hunting you should have the exact same level of risk as every other cov ops cruiser.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 320	Posted - 2017.04.19 03:07:33 - [348] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No they can't, thats why everyone used to send bonus T3C through gates before a fleet fight. They were guaranteed to get through no matter how many people are on the gate. This was a problem with off-grid boosting, and off-grid boosting was nerfed for good reasons. It isn't relevant to the current game. Quote: If you want to go hunting you should have the exact same level of risk as every other cov ops cruiser. This would be a much more credible argument if T3s cost the same as a recon ship and didn't cost you skill points (a far more relevant cost than the ISK). And, assuming a re-balance that nerfs the tank on T3s (a problem regardless of subsystem choices, so the most likely target for a nerf) if they had the same auto-win ewar ability as recons. With a nerfed tank and no bubble immunity there's no real reason to take a T3 over a Stratios.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 764	Posted - 2017.04.19 06:32:35 - [349] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: This would be a much more credible argument if T3s cost the same as a recon ship and didn't cost you skill points (a far more relevant cost than the ISK). And, assuming a re-balance that nerfs the tank on T3s (a problem regardless of subsystem choices, so the most likely target for a nerf) if they had the same auto-win ewar ability as recons. With a nerfed tank and no bubble immunity there's no real reason to take a T3 over a Stratios. Tank will be paperthin on covops I think. They want to keep SP loss and I do not know why. We have SP injectors now, what's the point? Cooldown would be better. here are proposed subsystems changes ship and modules offensive and defensive subsystems looking good. I would change base agility or speed into warp speed subsystem. I have no idea what they are thinking about core subsystems. I would rather go into: 1) Ewar, 2) Overheat, 3) Sensors. Still don't know where scanning and hacking bonuses will go. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Blossom Rivers The Scope Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2017.04.19 09:34:27 - [350] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: tl:dr I notice how you entirely avoided my challenge to you GÇ£normally decloakingGÇ¥ T3 Cruisers, so we can at least agree that itGÇÖs not practical to do so. But dude you want to operate under the premise of GÇ£You canGÇÖt catch me, but I can catch youGÇ¥, you only want the rules of Nullsec to apply for combat when you want them to, rather than all the time. You want to travel in a combat ship in null with with the same level of safety as Hisec. This promotes gameplay where players avoid combat entirely until circumstances are overwhelmingly in their favour, and only picking the fights they know they can win. I understand mobility is important, but if Nullsec travel is an issue, get instawarp nullified shuttles. Instead we give that ability to arguably one of the most powerful sub capital combat ships in Eve the T3 Cruiser. Nullsec is about danger, combat and collaboration, itGÇÖs not about safety. The only safety there should be in Null is the safety the players themselves create. Your opinion of GÇ£interesting forms of combatGÇ¥ is skewed, whatGÇÖs interesting for some is not for others, it is just your opinion, one perspective amongst so many others. What it does highlight is your own personal bias that there are forms of combat you specifically want to avoid, because it interferes with your personal play style. Whats good for you isn't necessarily whats good for the game. Your opinion that gate camps are lazy is one perspective, another is that cloaky nullified ship pilots who press the warp and cloak button is also lazy gameplay, no having to check the map for system activity, no having to use scouts, no piloting skills, nothing, 2 buttons is all it takes. The thing about perspectives is there's more than one. A gate camp might seem uninteresting to you, but for others blockades form an important role in maintaining strategic objectives (anchoring structures, defending mining ops, reducing enemy combat mobility/reinforcements). Gate camps take multiple pilots (Plex) to maintain, committing resources which may potentially result in no kills at all, but players are spending hours of their own time collaborating and coordinating these blockades to secure strategic objectives, only to have T3 Cruisers pass right by, risk free. It should be practical to decloak and lock a T3 Cruiser, I didn't say it should be easy, but if a group makes an effort and fits ship specifically for this purpose it should be achievable, right now there are no practical options to counter the cloak+nullified T3 Cruiser. We don't need a specific module or anything fancy, we can achieve it using existing game mechanics (e.g. increasing align time).

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 764	Posted - 2017.04.19 10:44:19 - [351] - Quote Blossom Rivers wrote: But dude you want to operate under the premise of GÇ£You canGÇÖt catch me, but I can catch youGÇ¥, you only want the rules of Nullsec to apply for combat when you want them to, rather than all the time. You want to travel in a combat ship in null with with the same level of safety as Hisec. T3C covops won't have spectacular combat abilities after the changes I think. Blossom Rivers wrote: This promotes gameplay where players avoid combat entirely until circumstances are overwhelmingly in their favour, and only picking the fights they know they can win. I understand mobility is important, but if Nullsec travel is an issue, get instawarp nullified shuttles. Instead we give that ability to arguably one of the most powerful sub capital combat ships in Eve the T3 Cruiser. Shuttles won't work, they'll be smartbombed. Blossom Rivers wrote: Nullsec is about danger, combat and collaboration, itGÇÖs not about safety. The only safety there should be in Null is the safety the players themselves create. Right. After the changes to the bubbles I still see dead end pipes guarded by them (large T2) with carriers ratting in every system. Null should be dangerous because of T3C passing by defenses. Blossom Rivers wrote: It should be practical to decloak and lock a T3 Cruiser, I didn't say it should be easy, but if a group makes an effort and fits ship specifically for this purpose it should be achievable, right now there are no practical options to counter the cloak+nullified T3 Cruiser. We don't need a specific module or anything fancy, we can achieve it using existing game mechanics (e.g. increasing align time). Nullfied systems already have penalty to align time. In combat spec align time is not that great, my tengu align in 3,5 sec but it has zero combat capabilities. You are talking about T3C as if you don't know huge nerfs are incoming. As for the gate camps if there are ships that can instalock and hit me with huge alpha damage I have no issiue with instawarping cloaked T3 cruiser - this won't be ever balanced. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18868	Posted - 2017.04.19 14:31:13 - [352] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: This was a problem with off-grid boosting, and off-grid boosting was nerfed for good reasons. It isn't relevant to the current game. The have not removed the mechanic that allows them to get past any sized gate camp. Merin Ryskin wrote: This would be a much more credible argument if T3s cost the same as a recon ship and didn't cost you skill points (a far more relevant cost than the ISK). And, assuming a re-balance that nerfs the tank on T3s (a problem regardless of subsystem choices, so the most likely target for a nerf) if they had the same auto-win ewar ability as recons. With a nerfed tank and no bubble immunity there's no real reason to take a T3 over a Stratios. T3 would have the ability to adapt without a station or capital/nester and the ability to swap out rigs without destroying them. Cost means nothing to a lot of us but I would expect T3C build costs to drop and the SP loss tossed in the bin as it doesn't work.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 73	Posted - 2017.04.21 19:36:36 - [353] - Quote baltec1 wrote: T3 would have the ability to adapt without a station or capital/nester and the ability to swap out rigs without destroying them. Cost means nothing to a lot of us but I would expect T3C build costs to drop and the SP loss tossed in the bin as it doesn't work. T3C's are one of the best examples of how to add balance to a ship other than just pure isk. Using cost as the only balance has never worked. Yet it still happens. The best recent example of this the T3D's do they cost more than an Assualt frig? sure. is the worst T3D still better than the best AF? yup... cost is no balance at all. CSM XI Member Twitter: Sullen_Decimus Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus
anton Skor Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 0	Posted - 2017.04.21 20:38:54 - [354] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Interdiction should be manned IMO. Anchored bubble are fine if you keep a presence around them. I don't know how it should be made to work in game but but the bubble should deactivate when nobody "guard" it. The only bubbles that should remain active when there is no one around are the interdictor ones since they are temporary anyway. This all day ^^^^^^^
anton Skor Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 0	Posted - 2017.04.21 20:39:53 - [355] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: baltec1 wrote: T3 would have the ability to adapt without a station or capital/nester and the ability to swap out rigs without destroying them. Cost means nothing to a lot of us but I would expect T3C build costs to drop and the SP loss tossed in the bin as it doesn't work. T3C's are one of the best examples of how to add balance to a ship other than just pure isk. Using cost as the only balance has never worked. Yet it still happens. The best recent example of this the T3D's do they cost more than an Assualt frig? sure. is the worst T3D still better than the best AF? yup... cost is no balance at all. nothing like those 100k+ ehp legions for balance eh?
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 765	Posted - 2017.04.21 21:24:38 - [356] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: T3C's are one of the best examples of how to add balance to a ship other than just pure isk. Using cost as the only balance has never worked. Yet it still happens. The best recent example of this the T3D's do they cost more than an Assualt frig? sure. is the worst T3D still better than the best AF? yup... cost is no balance at all. It may go sideways, like marauders costs more than carriers, because of balance... Famous ship progession tree made by CCP landed in the bin long time ago. T2s prices are almost at the faction prices. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Tessa Sage Legion of the Wicked Way Advent of Fate 1	Posted - 2017.04.28 09:55:06 - [357] - Quote Pages ago, there was talk of nullification switching to a lowslot module, to be more in line with warp core stabs rather than the current case innately with Interceptors and T3's subsystems. I'd take it a step further: making your ship immune to interdiction bubbles should behave exactly like fitting 'Polarized' hislots: lose all your resists.
Luc Chastot 703	Posted - 2017.04.29 16:05:54 - [358] - Quote Inherent nullification should only be present in travel and some industrial ships. For combat ships it should be made available in an active module with huge penalties that could be lessened with role bonuses. Currently, nullified ships, especially interceptors, are way too mobile. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Tessa Sage Legion of the Wicked Way Advent of Fate 4	Posted - 2017.04.30 18:34:29 - [359] - Quote anton Skor wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Interdiction should be manned IMO. Anchored bubble are fine if you keep a presence around them. I don't know how it should be made to work in game but but the bubble should deactivate when nobody "guard" it. The only bubbles that should remain active when there is no one around are the interdictor ones since they are temporary anyway. This all day ^^^^^^^ Man those bubbles, or the other side will man them for you :P Quote: Currently, nullified ships, especially interceptors, are way too mobile. I don't know about that Luc, the agility plays a factor here - interceptors can and do get warp scrammed if they are aligning out of gate cloak in the presence of 'instalocking' T3s. I have managed on a cheap cruiser hull about 1500mm base scan res before remote boosts, it's fun.
Kuromiko Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 20	Posted - 2017.05.09 05:00:12 - [360] - Quote Luc Chastot wrote: interceptors are way too mobile. Oui. And have 0-150 dps with the tank of a wet noodle. All they have is mobility and and a point. Essential for fleet scouting and tackling. There is a rebalance coming, let's see what proposed changes are. More penalty for nulified t3 would be good, like slower align time (even 1-2s) -1 low/med slot etc. So they aren't uncatchable and have weaker tank/ control.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.