| 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) |
Tribal Trogdor
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
20
   |
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:16:53 -
[61] - Quote
Bubbles should definitely exist. They're rather useful in small/solo camping where you don't want to have to sit with a bubble ship, or otherwise don't have access to one.
Should they decay? That depends. Do you plan to make them easier to kill? If so, no. Do you plan to make them more expensive? If so, no. But currently roaming through drone lands there are some systems with 20+ Large T2 bubbles on and around the gates in most systems. Each costing only some 20 mil and having 200k hp. Many of these systems are just empty, so they are more or less just a pain in the ass that nobody really wants to sit around and shoot for no gain/reward, which means pretty low risk of having to replace for people who drop them.
As bubbles and interdiction currently are though, I think some special ships, like interceptors and yachts should be immune to them. Being able to get eyes on a gate/system without being pulled to a gate, especially with current 40km hic points and such is important.
I think the current broken part of T3's with nullification is the ability to refit subsystems with a depot. You shouldn't be able to fly somewhere, with such incredibility low risk then refit to a full combat fit to do whatever it is you want (pve/pvp/other?) and then refit and leave again with almost no risk.
|
Dug
Zero Given
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:17:07 -
[62] - Quote
So make bubbles cap dependant!
An anchored bubble has a cargo bay accessible by who (corp or individual) to access and replenish the cap charges.
Large = 3200's
Medium = 800's
Small = 200's
Anti bubble warfare, drain the cap of a bubble and it goes off line. Needs more cap boosters and redoes the onlining timer.
If the bubbles have cargo for day's or hours, is for highly trained balance dev's to decide.
I'm on the fence if light-dictor bubbles should be affected. (they have a battery, and draining cap reduces the time the field is up?!?)
This change could be utilised by sending a Curse ahead of the fleet to clear a path.
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Badfellas Inc.
68
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:20:37 -
[63] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Rainus Max wrote:I'd liked to see a manned counter to nullified ships.
Perhaps a HIC mod/script that creates a bubble that only drags nullified ships but is only say 10km in radius you mean like smartbomb?
As long as it stops them warping off.
I have zero issue with nullification but it would be nice have some way of catching them every now and again. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3676
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:20:53 -
[64] - Quote
Tribal Trogdor wrote:
I think the current broken part of T3's with nullification is the ability to refit subsystems with a depot. You shouldn't be able to fly somewhere, with such incredibility low risk then refit to a full combat fit to do whatever it is you want (pve/pvp/other?) and then refit and leave again with almost no risk.
they actually don't have that low of risk
a decent camp can catch one before it warps of
dramis regularly manage to de-cloak and tackle me before i align and warp in my t3 so no the bubble isn't enough to catch them but standard camps are. you also can't refit at this point
BLOPS Hauler
|
Zanthar Eos
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:21:57 -
[65] - Quote
Remove nullification from interceptors, leave it for t3s. Allow non combat ships to be nullified. Add a 24 hour life to bubbles. |
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies
The-Culture
176
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:22:41 -
[66] - Quote
On anchorable bubbles :
Yes, they should be a 'timed' deployable.
I also believe there should be restrictions on the number of anchorable bubbles placed next to one another, but that a super huge bubble should be created to compensate. This would not only lighten the load on graphics cards, but make understanding what is happening much easier compared to the mess a large number of overlapping bubbles is now.
On Nullification :
The answer is "it depends." I believe nullification on T3 ships is fine, but not on interceptors or other combat ships.
I support nullification on shuttles and blockaid runners (I mean, they're supposed to run past blockaids right? Sounds like nullification to me). |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3676
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:23:52 -
[67] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:
I support nullification on shuttles and blockaid runners (I mean, they're supposed to run past blockaids right? Sounds like nullification to me).
the thing with BRs is they can already get bast them since they are able to take a black ops bridge
i think that they need a team effort is far better
BLOPS Hauler
|
skar23
Space Cowboys unleashed
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:24:33 -
[68] - Quote
Cassie Helio wrote:Some other pilots believe that the nullified inty is a risk free travel ship but that is not true. That's why we DO NOT use intys to haul goods at PushX. They are hard to catch but they are easy to smartbomb and it happens all the time and it even happens in null. Like every other good balance it has its advantages and disadvantages. It is quick and nullified but it's also weak and fragile.
It is quite harsh to be rolling along in an interceptor and suddenly you are dead and your pod is also dead - that is drawback enough smart bombers kill you every time -
there is no escape..... |
epicurus 2
Secret Passage
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:24:53 -
[69] - Quote
Christy Cloud wrote:To copy what I said in slack -
i feel that nullification suits what a ceptors meant to do, a yacht is fine, shuttles i'd actually say no, as it becomes a fairly risk free way of moving your pod
t3 interdiction i feel should have more of a draw back than just "you cant do anything else with this subsystem slot" it should penalize, rather than just not benefit
blockade runners, no - Getting through a bubble is the job of the pilot
as for bubbles, i'd rather they have a cargo that they slowly consume, meaning they have to be maintained, and attackers can send forward scouts to just nick all the ammo
You should be aware, that not only do you miss having a more useful subsystem, you also suffer a loss of a low slot, which has a SIGNIFICANT effect on the combat fit of a t3.
The effect of fitting for nullification is quite sufficient for you to want to avoid the subsystem unless it is really needed. |
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies
The-Culture
176
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:28:25 -
[70] - Quote
That requires 2 other ships....a covert cyno ship, and a blackops to bridge. While I support team gameplay, 'blockaid runner' is a very specific term. They aren't "Blockaid Avoiders" or "Blockaid Bypassers." Also, forming a group like that is not viable most of the time. Maybe on occasion, but not consistently.
If you want them to be "Blockaid Bypassers" then give them the ability to jump to a covert cyno without the need for a black ops portal, and rename them as such. |
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3677
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:29:52 -
[71] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:That requires 2 other ships....a covert cyno ship, and a blackops to bridge. While I support team gameplay, 'blockaid runner' is a very specific term. They aren't "Blockaid Avoiders" or "Blockaid Bypassers"
Also forming a group like that is not viable most of the time. Maybe on occasion, but not consistently.
we do it all the time your group just sounds like it needs to pull its self together
it is not hard to get three people together
BLOPS Hauler
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies
The-Culture
176
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:34:06 -
[72] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
we do it all the time your group just sounds like it needs to pull its self together
it is not hard to get three people together
"My group" uses Jump Freighters :)
I would venture that the number of blockaid runners bypassing gatecamps in the manner you described is pretty low. While it's not 'hard' to get 3 people together, most people don't bother and either find another way (JFs) or wait for the camp to break up. |
Mirta Vanderkill
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:34:35 -
[73] - Quote
As for nullified ships, I feel that anything capable of doing more than interceptor-levels of damage shouldn't be capable of nullifcation.
For example, I'm fine with T3's being nullified, but I'd like to see it at the cost of all but one of their turret slots. Whole fleets of nullified cruisers shouldn't be a thing. Interceptors are OK because for them to pump out a significant amount of damage, their EHP has to be ****. A whole fleet could be wiped by one or two smartbombing battleships.
As for anchored bubbles, I'm fine with leaving them setup until after downtime. It's probably as close to a "minefield" as we can get. If so motivated, Alliances can set them up to slow down fleet movements, giving them more time to form and making their space far less fun to conquer than someone else's.
Actual minefields would be cool too btw. Something along the lines of anchoring a large smartbomb for a long-term anchorable, or a one-shot mine that counts for 4-8 smartbombs on the first hostile it sees. |
Stonewall Riot
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:34:48 -
[74] - Quote
Make current nullification module on t3c's or hell even make a new fittable module for DST/BR's that allow nullification but that nullification comes with the same penalty as a polarized weapon. 0% resists and heck, maybe even add a cloaking activation timer upon jump(or just all the time)?
Gate jump hold cloak timer = 30 seconds, Nullification module adds a 50 second timer to reactivate cloak that can be lowered X% by Covert Ops skill but truly only getting down close to 30 sec with level V covops skill
Creates a challenge to create a cloaky nullified combat ship, still can be done but you've gotta be smarter and increases risk.
If you make the modules for other ships then it makes those folks have to be smarter about what they are doing and pay a lot more attention.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3677
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:35:44 -
[75] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
we do it all the time your group just sounds like it needs to pull its self together
it is not hard to get three people together
"My group" uses Jump Freighters :) I would venture that the number of blockaid runners bypassing gatecamps in the manner you described is pretty low. While it's not 'hard' to get 3 people together, most people don't bother and either find another way (JFs) or wait for the camp to break up.
there are times you need to get goods where you don't want a JF. such as when there is no station otherwise yeah just use a JF
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
266
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:36:05 -
[76] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:lol show me the fits that survive 16 faction bombs and can ista warp aside from that you will regularly find smartbomb camps with 4+BBs
[Ares, Travelceptor]
Damage Control II
Inertial Stabilizers II
Inertial Stabilizers II
Inertial Stabilizers II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender
Medium F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Small Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II
I'm sorry, I had my warp speed rigged travelceptor in mind which only tanks two. Above cheap fitting tanks THREE SB Battleships (they hit for 3000HP each):
9.36k EHP on the lowest resist without heat, 1.8s align time.
Would you call using 4 SB battleships to take out a frig "easy"? What are you actually saying?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
171
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:36:17 -
[77] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Some topics:
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
What I write below is based on my experiences in null as a cloaky camper, guy getting cloaky camped, fleet scout, fleet member, and normal player trying to move around.
Before I address the questions, I feel that interdiction should be a module that can only be fit to certain ships.
Should combat ships be nullified? - Yes BUT:
- They should not able to instawarp (ceptors). Please keep in mind I am referring to combat ships only here. I would have no problem with a shuttle that could insta-warp and be nullified.
- They should not be able to fit cynos (or at the very least covert cynos). This primarily affects T3s as far as covert cynos go.
Should non-combat ships be nullified? - Yes BUT:
Shuttles, Yatchs, etc. (basically stuff that is just there to help a play move from one place to the other.
- Zero combat possibilities
- Cannot fit cloaks
- Cannot fit cyno
- Zero cargo space (or heck let them have cargo space so we see blueprint shuttles killed)
Blockade Runners, others: No unless interdiction is a module, but even then it could be debated against.
Anchored Bubbles: Yes keep them BUT:
1. Have them use stront or something as fuel. Make it a small amount needed but small cargo bay so it has to be refilled 1 or 2 times a week.
2. KILLMAILS
3. Reduce their EHP
4. Limit how close they can be anchored together to prevent spam (probably increase the size of the bubble to compensate a little but be careful as one bubble would then be able to completely cover a POS)
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3678
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:38:38 -
[78] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:
Would you call using 4 SB battleships to take out a frig "easy"? What are you actually saying?
yes as that is the size of most of the camps and you can just afk and get kms
BLOPS Hauler
|
Soleil Fournier
Black Serpent Technologies
The-Culture
176
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:39:20 -
[79] - Quote
I'd also submit that needing a billion-ish isk blackops battleship and a toon skilled in it (plus the covert ops cyno ship and a toon trained for that) just to use your hauler as it was intended to bypass a gatecamp is too big a burden.
What other ship in eve requires 2 other ships in order to accomplish it's primary purpose? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3678
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:39:26 -
[80] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Some topics:
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
What I write below is based on my experiences in null as a cloaky camper, guy getting cloaky camped, fleet scout, fleet member, and normal player trying to move around. Before I address the questions, I feel that interdiction should be a module that can only be fit to certain ships. Should combat ships be nullified? - Yes BUT: - They should not able to instawarp (ceptors). Please keep in mind I am referring to combat ships only here. I would have no problem with a shuttle that could insta-warp and be nullified. - They should not be able to fit cynos (or at the very least covert cynos). This primarily affects T3s as far as covert cynos go. Should non-combat ships be nullified? - Yes BUT: Shuttles, Yatchs, etc. (basically stuff that is just there to help a play move from one place to the other. - Zero combat possibilities - Cannot fit cloaks - Cannot fit cyno - Zero cargo space (or heck let them have cargo space so we see blueprint shuttles killed) Blockade Runners, others: No unless interdiction is a module, but even then it could be debated against. Anchored Bubbles: Yes keep them BUT: 1. Have them use stront or something as fuel. Make it a small amount needed but small cargo bay so it has to be refilled 1 or 2 times a week. 2. KILLMAILS 3. Reduce their EHP 4. Limit how close they can be anchored together to prevent spam (probably increase the size of the bubble to compensate a little but be careful as one bubble would then be able to completely cover a POS)
lol does test have trouble keeping its ratters safe from the little guy with a cyno?
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
Tribal Trogdor
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
20
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:42:10 -
[81] - Quote
deleted |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
Silent Infinity
266
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:45:23 -
[82] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sarah Flynt wrote:
Would you call using 4 SB battleships to take out a frig "easy"? What are you actually saying?
yes as that is the size of most of the camps and you can just afk and get kms
No, you can't just go AFK. It requires precise timing. Have you ever smartbombed ships at a gate, especially extremely fast ones?
How many ships would one need so you would say, it's not easy? 5? 10?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
480
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:53:39 -
[83] - Quote
I think nullification on combat interceptors is too powerful for the ship size.
The Yacht is a prime example of a "good" interdiction on a "cheap" ship that basically can only be used for travel. I would not have a problem with interdiction being removed from interceptors but left on the Yacht or a similar non-combat ship used for travel (say a T2 shuttle :slightly_smiling_face: ).
T3C interdiction nullification comes at a cost in subsystem choice and I think is in an OK place though could be tweaked with any T3C re-balance so I wouldn't stress much about T3Cs currently.
Bubble decay sounds like a good idea. I'll let those that use them extensively hammer out a proper decay time |
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
78
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:55:11 -
[84] - Quote
The fact that things are so split suggests things are broadly speaking fine.
Nullification should have a heavy impact on combat use, it mostly already does. Bubbles are one of the big things that set apart null / WH space and force commitment to fights.
Hauling is in a good place for bubbles, cloaking and nullification. If you are moving stuff you should take care or lose it. A scout and a BR gives you safety at an acceptable cost. A nullified / instawarp style pod taxi is a huge QoL thing but shouldn't have huge cargo, shuttle size cargo. Not able to warp cloaked is probably wise to avoid excessive use as a scout.
Anchor bubbles seem the biggest issue but don't want a nerf in to oblivion. I think making NPCs shoot them if they are in their effect is a sensible step, it needs to be done for the mining fleets anyway. May as well add killmails too, that way if somebody routinely hell bubbles gates you can see that by kb analysis.
The big gripe about seas of bubbles is a problem of accumulation and no maintenance.
There are plenty of gimmick options but I don't think Eve needs more of those. If something can be fixed by making almost universal things universal or making it more common sense that should be the route to take. |
Major Trant
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
1582
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:56:07 -
[85] - Quote
Dunk Dinkle wrote:A skill or module to unanchor unfriendly bubbles should be introduced. This would enable many more game play scenarios and encourage "manned" bubbling.
^ this. Otherwise I'm happy 'as is' with all other aspects under discussion. |
Ryac Sampaio
Gladiators of Rage
ChaosTheory.
18
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:56:39 -
[86] - Quote
My thoughts ...
Decay would definitely be a good idea I think. Have S/M/L/XL with longer decay times and EHP the larger you go, something like 3 hours/6 hours/9 hours/12 hours (6/12/18/24 for T2)... Another thought I had was that anchorable bubbles must be fueled (Stront perhaps?) and will go offline once they run out, this adds an element of risk to keeping them up especially if you have multiple bubbles up. (Inb4 "Oh noes my ISK efficiency!").
I think making any more ships nullified or introducing the ability to nullify a ship of your choice could be a good and a bad thing, I'm in two minds. One thing I love about Eve Online when compared to other MMO's is that it makes you use your brain and as an FC, all the different tactics I must consider when on a fleet is part of the fun for me. Having more nullified ships could in theory, negate Dictors/Hictors/Bubbles from Nullsec combat, which reduces the tactical enjoyment factor for me.
On the other hand, if there was to be a module introduced that nullified ships it could open the doors for some interesting new doctrines and fleet compositions. There'd have to be some big flip side of the coin for such a module though, i.e. % reduction to AB/MWD Speed, % reduction to Warp Speed, % increase to signature radius (wouldn't stack with Shield Extenders), % reduction to ship agility, to name a few. Would also want to be a relatively expensive module to fit.
Ryac.
|
kasbah
Flames Of Chaos
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 16:57:30 -
[87] - Quote
Deployable bubbles should exist but interference from overlapping bubbles should make them unstable and not work. Would fix bubble?-ú&@ed gates.
|
lord xavier
Rubbed Out
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
147
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:04:35 -
[88] - Quote
Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not?
T3s with the subsystem isn't much of a combat ship. But serves a roll with the subsystem for combat uses.
Intercepters well, sure. But 95% of the time they are used for traveling and entosising. While it serves as an annoyance since fozzie sov, cepters still have their purpose as well.
How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts?
Shuttles sure, they die easy enough.
Blockade runners, tbh. Sure.One can cloak, other gets free pass warp.
Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?
Yes, They need a timer and a killmail.
-- We are revisiting nullfication but it wont mean much since all people are gonna do is MWD+Cloak trick out of bubbles with anything nullified anyways. How about we revisit the MWD+Cloak mechanic that works on virtually every ship except for capitals (I have NOT tested this since the capital prop mods, maybe someone has more insight if it works with that?) |
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
Grumpy Space Bastards
271
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:12:50 -
[89] - Quote
Prometheus Hinken wrote:I'm all for having anchorable bubbles decay over time, based on their size and tech.
I like this.
1 hour for a large T1
45 minutes for a medium T1
30 minutes for a small T1
50-100% duration bonus on T2 bubbles
I don't have an issue with nullified ships. |
Johnny Twelvebore
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
74
|
Posted - 2017.02.01 17:12:56 -
[90] - Quote
Just make bubbles unanchorable/scoopable by anyone, use it or lose it, should solve the problem..
Bloody hell, another eve blog! http://johnnytwelvebore.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |