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)
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6409	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:34:20 - [1] - Quote Afternoon folks, I'm looking to spark some discussion on a topic, to guage player reactions across a wide variety of play styles. There's been some discussion within the CSM on whether nullification on combat ships is a good or bad thing. This included talking about anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. So, if you can post on those topics here, (or by mail, or on the reddit thread I'll be creating from this, if you think that the eve forums are less than good for such discussions) I'd appreciate it. I've heard some strong feelings on all the sides of the argument, but they tend to be from a fairly limited subset of people, rather than a broader consensus. 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? Thanks (If you dont have a specific thought to add to the matter, throwing a like onto a post which expresses what you think is a good idea. Just to keep things from getting cluttered with 'me too' posts) Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Frostys Virpio Yet another corpdot. 3065	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:40:11 - [2] - Quote 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.
Anthar Thebess 1668	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:44:42 - [3] - Quote Why this discussion start now, before CSM campaign, and not like few months earlier? What happened in last week, that so many CSM people started to ask questions about obvious things that annoy players? Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Prometheus Hinken Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition. 4	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:44:48 - [4] - Quote I'm all for having anchorable bubbles decay over time, based on their size and tech.
Poision Kevin Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 45	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:45:46 - [5] - Quote +1 on timer on anchoreable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less. T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks. Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess. Yachts Definetly yes. Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze.
Coelomate KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 62	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:46:37 - [6] - Quote I think the bubble/nullification ecosystem works very well as it is, to be honest. Boring feedback I guess? Anchorable bubbles expiring eventually would be fine, but they can already be shot, so whatever. Nullified ships have plenty of drawbacks to keep things balanced. Nullified scouting + non-nullified combat/hauling is generally optimal nowadays, which IMO is a right and a good and a joyous thing. Love, ~Coelomate
Admiral Sarah Solette Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 29	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:50:04 - [7] - Quote I don't see too much of an issue either way. I think anchored bubbles provide a sort of soft defense for areas of space, which is a good thing IMO since they can also be avoided/blown up. I hate nullification when I'm trying to camp a gate, but I love it when I'm traveling or scouting, so again I think it works out fine. Even if I do with T3s didn't have the option of being cloaky AND nullified, but again I think they're honestly fine as is.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 3565	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:51:09 - [8] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes, as long as they dont have the same defense/offense capabilities as the ones without one. If you get more security, you should get less of the rest to keep it balanced. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Yes. This way more people from "safe" highsec will take a look in to the other parts of space and notice it might not be as bad as they though it was. Ships without offense should be able to have more defense. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes. The more variables in a game, the harder things become to predict..... aka more fun. A timer.... absolutely! DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE ! Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Triumvirate. 67	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:52:47 - [9] - Quote Poision Kevin wrote: +1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less. 10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space. T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks. Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess. Yachts Definetly yes. Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze. I-¦m just copying what he^ said. Timer on bubbles should be at least a couple of hours though.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6410	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:53:55 - [10] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Why this discussion start now, before CSM campaign, and not like few months earlier? What happened in last week, that so many CSM people started to ask questions about obvious things that annoy players? 'obvious' isn't always as obvious as you might think. Which is why I'm kicking this up for discussion. In internal discussions, there's been more disagreement than expected on both sides. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Dunk Dinkle Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 135	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:54:02 - [11] - Quote Nullification on T3Cs is currently OP. Unanchoring of bubbles should be allowable by any in-corp. Currently to anchor on behalf of corp requires special roles. Make it simpler for unanchoring to occur, after a camp is done and can be packed up. A skill or module to unanchor unfriendly bubbles should be introduced. This would enable many more game play scenarios and encourage "manned" bubbling.
Doomchinchilla Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion 154	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:54:15 - [12] - Quote Poision Kevin wrote: +1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less. 10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space. T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks. Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess. Yachts Definetly yes. Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze. This pretty much... also all deployables give a killmail/lossmail. Make bubbles do the same. People will spam them less willy nilly if they get lossmails for them.
Yarosara Ruil Haighare Pirates 900	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:57:58 - [13] - Quote It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever. Because bubbles have no counter other than get around them with clever warping tactics or get stuck inside them with whatever else is inside the bubble (usually other ships that want to explode you).
Kythren Lazerhawks 1	Posted - 2017.02.01 14:59:51 - [14] - Quote Maybe start by gate rats shooting anchored bubbles. As others have noted you could add a timer that requires players do to maintenance on anchored bubbles. For example every 6 hours bubbles power down and need to be onlined again. Maybe require a small amount of t2/3 PI materials to run. This would allow players to secure a PVE operation they plan to do on that day whilst also removing the bubble menace that nullsec entities currently employ. Also enforce the maximum of ~10-15 bubbles on a gate more vigorously, players who get petitioned for this should receive a penalty after the first offence. This should never be tolerated. I do not like the idea of adding more nullified ships, t3 cruisers and interceptors are sufficient for their purpose.
Mornak Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 90	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:00:20 - [15] - Quote Thanks for asking! I mostly fly small/tiny gangs and a bit of solo, here's my view of things. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? As a very niche thing, yes. But it should come at a high price. Why not make it a module maybe even with side effects like lower resis or so. Of course this module could only be fitted on a tiny selection of ships. (T3Cs have this idea "kind of" implemented already by using different subsystems with less slots/tank). I didn't really think this idea through, sorry. But I'd like to have a choice if or if not I want my ceptor nullified... with both options having their pros and cons. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? The biggest problem I have with non-combat nullified ships are nullified insta-warp ships. Unless you smartbomb travel ceptors there's no way to catch them unless they screw up badly. And if you bring smartbomb ships for that purpose you won't be doing anything else than wait for such ships... I just don't think of that as "interesting content". Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Imo they should definitely exist, yes. Setting up a drag-bubble in a pipe while solo can be fun, beeing required to bring a dictor for that is very limiting. I also like the idea that you can use bubbles to protect a mining op or whatever. Giving them a decay time would be a great change though so that whoever is completely bubbling a system need to put some effort in it. As it is now, you can just bubble up a remote pocket/system and unless someone really puts in a lot of effort to bring the bubbles down you'll be quite safe "forever".
Lucia Denniard Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 28	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:01:08 - [16] - Quote I feel that interdiction nullification should only exist for "travel" uses, allowing you to get past anchored bubbles, but not past interdictors, it always felt a bit cheap to write off the entire category of player manned interdictors, relying on instalocking interceptors. You could maybe give heavy interdictors a special scripted bubble that's smaller and stops nullified ships, but then we're getting into pretty gimmicky territory. One aspect of this which I feel important is interceptors and anchored bubbles. For wormhole groups a large section of our content is from getting connections to remote nullsec areas and catching miners/ratters using interceptors to get past the large (100km+ diameter) bubble setups on gates. Removing nullification entirely would harm this gameplay, and even if you made bubbles take fuel or give killmails, I'd feel better if it actually forced interdictors to sit on gates and have a real presence. T3 cruisers should probably lose nullification if we get a big T3C balance pass, I'd be happy with them all getting a grav (warp speed) subsystem there in place of it, or a mode system similar to T3 destroyers.
Van Doe 13	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:03:36 - [17] - Quote Yarosara Ruil wrote: It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever. Because bubbles have no counter other than get around them with clever warping tactics or get stuck inside them with whatever else is inside the bubble (usually other ships that want to explode you). Eve is not the game to be stupid. Eve is about being clever. So use clever tactics or die I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Zelden Aurilen SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST The-Culture 2	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:04:10 - [18] - Quote Anchorable Bubbles. Anchorable bubbles are good for keeping nullsec dangerous. I don't think bubbles should decay BUT I think they should have a minimum anchor distance to other bubbles. (For example 100km) This allows continued disruption in the form of drag bubbles and single bubbles on gates but removes the absolute cancer of 50 T2 Large bubbles stacked on a single gate. Nullified Combat Ships One of the best parts of nullsec pvp is that you can force some fleets to fight. Nullified combat ships are up there with oversized prop-mods in the anti-fun department. I do understand the benefit of nullified ships for small groups - hit and run disruption tactics provides options for david vs goliath, however the ability for larger groups to utilise this on a greater scale leads to horrible abominations like slippery petes. Honestly removing nullified combat ships from the game would be a fantastic improvement. Nullified non-combat ships Nullified non-combat ships are a bit of a debate. On the one hand a large number of groups and older players have great access to jump freighters meaning that the need to send hundreds of industrial ships through long nullsec routes is a long way in the past. On the other hand the continued lack of options for newer players adds to the daunting side of nullsec. I don't think that nullified non-combat ships is a bad thing. There are still ways to catch such ships (smartbomb camps, insta-lockers etc) and they provide a valuable service in allowing lower-skilled players to move cargo through dangerous space. I think a module that allows nullification would be a good idea, with the caveat that it increases align time. Fitting restrictions could prevent it be fitted to unsuitable ships. This could even allow for T1 industrials to have access to nullification if CCP saw fit. I think that nullification should not be a ship bonus and instead a restricted module as that allows easier tinkering for balance and always means there's a drawback to fitting one.
Anthar Thebess 1669	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:06:42 - [19] - Quote Ok then. Anchorable bubbles are ok. I hate them, but this is one way people protect their space, or do other crazy stuff. Only thing that need to change is KM generation, if we get KM from the anchorable bubbles we will get people who kill them. Interdiction nullification. Interceptors are just bad, they killed a lot of creative gameplay not introducing any thing positive. To cheap ship for this bonus, and sov mechanic. Nullified T3 yes, they are expensive and could be unique ships. Yachts, they are special edition ships and only because of this - yes. Blockade runners - no, they fly in cloack and hide cargo. Shuttles - no. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Mornak Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 90	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:07:19 - [20] - Quote Kythren wrote: Maybe start by gate rats shooting anchored bubbles. As others have noted you could add a timer that requires players do to maintenance on anchored bubbles. For example every 6 hours bubbles power down and need to be onlined again. Maybe require a small amount of t2/3 PI materials to run. This would allow players to secure a PVE operation they plan to do on that day whilst also removing the bubble menace that nullsec entities currently employ. Also enforce the maximum of ~10-15 bubbles on a gate more vigorously, players who get petitioned for this should receive a penalty after the first offence. This should never be tolerated. I do not like the idea of adding more nullified ships, t3 cruisers and interceptors are sufficient for their purpose. +1, I really like this idea! Imho a much better approach than a flat "decay time"

Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 266	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:08:41 - [21] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes, as long as they dont have the same defense/offense capabilities as the ones without one. If you get more security, you should get less of the rest to keep it balanced. This and "defense/offense capabilities" should include any kind of cyno. Nullification and cynos (including covert ones) should be mutually exclusive. Covert and nullified T3's used for hotdropping are a joke in their current form. Yarosara Ruil wrote: It would be cool if we had Cruisers and Destroyers that could warp through bubbles. Maybe a module with heavy costs that could give you Interdiction Nullification! Like a Bubble Core Stab or whatever. Together with the above this could be interresting. Finding the right balance cost-wise will be difficult however. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Grarr Dexx Ministry of War Amarr Empire 455	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:10:40 - [22] - Quote I think that anchorable bubbles without expiration times shouldn't exist. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of drone lands gates being locked down with 100+ large T1 bubbles. It doesn't cost a damned thing and provides near-perfect safety. Nullification is fine. Bubbles already posed little to no additional effort for interceptor pilots and in most cases, T3 cruisers fitting the modules are already so hamstrung they either have to invest heavily or remain useless just to avoid getting bubbled.
Petit Julot Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:12:20 - [23] - Quote CSM shouldn't weignt on the metagame, period. Please do whatever very important other thing you may have to do or just have a drink
Bobmon Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 203	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:14:53 - [24] - Quote Thx peeps! Love hearing your opinion @BobmonEVE - BOBMON FOR CSM 12
Capri Sun KraftFoods Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 61	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:19:02 - [25] - Quote The only combat ships that are nullified are interceptors and cloaky T3s. The clear scope of this in regards to catching ratters in null sec. Interceptors cannot hold point indefinitely. Every currently popular ratting ship can push off an interceptor, and even if it can't the rats will given time. Bubbles can then slow the larger support. There's very little issue with this on either side. The issue is enormous walls of bubbles 100km+ in every direction of a gate. There are dead end ratting systems in the eastern half of the map where you pass through over a billion ISK of bubbles to reach them. This on it's own isn't an issue were it not for the massive likely bot intel networks that combined are a complete alternative to having any kind of defense plan whatsoever. It's pretty much the ultimate example of the "just stay docked" mentality. I'm actually even okay with this, I just think it should come at a higher price. If bubbles had an expiration time and were one time use I'd be happy. 7 days seems like a reasonable duration but I'd be open to arguments either way. Also killmails would be amazing.
K04 78 C.Q.B 9	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:21:12 - [26] - Quote Hi Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? No. Combat means risk, and not moonwalk through everything. Especially Instawarping Inties are a pain. They are an uncatchable cancer for fights they dont want, still a threat if you have a bunch of them. Plus, they are abused to be a risk-free travel and transport method. Which shouldnt exist in EVE. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Blockade runners already are cloaked. Beeing Nullified makes them uncatchable and 99,9% safe. MWD + cloak is 90% uncatchable already. Shuttles are way too cheap to be anything than a better POD. Make them warp a bit faster. Yachts shouldnt exist at all. Cloaky and Nullified, with the option to put WCS and tank on it. Thats such a terrible idea. Remove the lows and/or nullification please. Or at least set aligntime to cruisersize. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Of course they should exist. They add so much tactic to the game. Let them expire by fuel or time. Thats fine. I'd prefer Fuel for that, as it would allow you to have it run as long as you want, while forcing some logistics to deploy.
Tabernash Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 3	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:22:52 - [27] - Quote If the only thing that comes out of this is some type of required distance between anchor-able bubbles that gets ride of the pure white screen of death when jumping into 50 bubbles anchored on top of each other I would call that a tremendous win. Think of the kids, think of the eyes. Make gates great again.
Capqu Half Empty Rollback to 2012 1254	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:23:08 - [28] - Quote nullification should be removed from all ships with modules or cargo it's the antithesis of what the game is about. it gives you free, unstoppable intel or guaranteed safe transport of goods. nullification removes skill from the equation of scouting, or high value small volume transport. i think travel should still be basically guaranteed safe, because any removal of tedium is 100% necessary with eve online in its current state however 100% remove it from ships with guns or cargo. noone knows any good interceptor pilots these days, because there arent any, because you're in an overpowered pile of ship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14657	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:27:02 - [29] - Quote Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming! We're watching this thread. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Capqu Half Empty Rollback to 2012 1255	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:27:31 - [30] - Quote Grarr Dexx wrote: Nullification is fine. Bubbles already posed little to no additional effort for interceptor pilots and in most cases, T3 cruisers fitting the modules are already so hamstrung they either have to invest heavily or remain useless just to avoid getting bubbled. wrong interceptor deaths before nullification were pretty much all from landing with a sabre in a bubble or jumping into a sabre and trying to warp nowadays ceptor deaths are due to going afk or thinking you can fight something you can't - you'll never die from being caught anymore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE

epicurus 2 Secret Passage 1	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:25 - [31] - Quote The current balance where interdiction capability has a direct relationship or effect on combat ability is fine. No changes to interdiction capabilities is required. Bubble spamming is a pain in just about every sense, either restrict the number through enforcing a significant distance between them, or make them require fuel.
Winter Archipelago Autumn Industrial Enterprises 825	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:37 - [32] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: 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? I'm against nullified combat ships (primarily T3C's). I feel that including it adds a bit too much strength to them. However, I like the thought on nullification in regards to some specific ships: I'd love to see Interceptors changed a bit, with four having nullification, better tackle bonuses, and dropping their combat bonuses (Ares, Crow, etc), and four being oriented towards combat but without the nullification bonus (Taranis, Raptor, etc). They would still function as travel ships and could still be used as fast tackle, but would be weak (weaker) in terms of combat, while the ones that are decent at combat won't have the nullification. I'd also love to see Blockade Runners given nullification. I was surprised a few years back with how the Transport Ships were revamped. I had figured that giving Blockade Runners a bonus to Warp Core Strength and nullification would have been a shoo-in idea (considering the historical use of Blockade-Running ships). The cargo scan immunity strikes me as an odd thing for a ship that's supposed to be difficult to catch (again, "difficult to catch" based on historical usage of their real-life namesakes). As for anchorable bubbles, they should exist, yes, as they serve a useful purpose, but they need to have one of three changes: a large minimum distance from each other (large enough to prevent overlap on even the T2 large bubbles), a decay timer, or generate a killmail. Generating a killmail would probably solve the problems in a much more enjoyable way for the average nullsec and wormhole resident. For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Van Doe 13	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:34:43 - [33] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming! We're watching this thread. Watch this instead https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=509350&find=unread #not_my_csm I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:37:27 - [34] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? yes for WH this is essential. and it is also very important in null for two reasons that i encounter. 1 being able to hit larger groups deep in their space 2 catching or intercepting an enemy fleet Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? i have no opinion on this well except that no BRs do not need this they can already be bridged past bubbles Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? at worst i think they should have a 24hr timer however i do not think it is needed. what is needed is a minimum range you can anchor these near each other so you don't wind up with 50 on a gate you need to slowly kill BLOPS Hauler
ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1418	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:39:26 - [35] - Quote Forum Rules of Conduct wrote: 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. # I have removed an off-topic post. ISD Fractal Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Kirito Litvyak Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two 8	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:39:59 - [36] - Quote Well it would be nearly impossible to run escalations etc if nullifiers were removed, exploration PVE would become nonexistant outside cheap frigates doing relic sites or escalations within well developed owned sov. NPC null would become complete trash with no activity.
Christy Cloud The Mongo Tree PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS 97	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:41:52 - [37] - Quote 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 My Third Party Thread(Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Current Trades - Selling 2 Travelfit Erebus 1 rigged 1 unrigged 85bil Ea Selling 1 Rigged travelfit Avatar 86b
Kirito Litvyak Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two 8	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:46:52 - [38] - Quote Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction? Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff. Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble(larger so less can be loaded). Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too) It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:48:05 - [39] - Quote Christy Cloud wrote: 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 to be fair it does. it gives no low slots and is slower and less agile but i agree more could be done i'm in favor of a resist or hitpoint penalty (god knows t3s have enough to spare) BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:49:28 - [40] - Quote Kirito Litvyak wrote: Maybe split it into active interdiction and passive interdiction? Passive = larger area of effect, anchored bubbles, HIC script + standard dictor bubble. But does not catch nullified stuff. Active = smaller area of effect, HIC script + advanced dictor bubble. Does prevent nullified ships from warping. (more expensive too) It is more lore friendly too, concord blah blah invent new thing to counter pirates nullification technology. it would be better if there was a hard lower limit on align time so nothing nullified could also instantly warp BLOPS Hauler

Cassie Helio Push Industries Push Interstellar Network 42	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:50:00 - [41] - Quote 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.
Assia Eko Art Of Explosions Hole Control 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:51:51 - [42] - Quote Timer on bubbles that are on a gate grid is a good idea. Make this timer a few hours and limit the amount of bubbles on a gate grid. If there are bubbles on a gate, every char entering the system through that gate will be shown in local with a delay of : X sec * [NumberOfBubbleOnThatGate]. As a nullsec player, you secured your system already. There are 30 bubbles on that gate so why add to that the fact that any people entering the system will instantly show in local. WH players only see a new sig spawn something like 30 seconds after a scout has jumped into you. WH players secured the system, althought they can see a new people entering your system (new sig spawn) with a delay. That should be somehow the same with Nullsec. You use one tool to secure your system from ganking (bubbles), you lose the benefits of the other one (local). Currently, Carriers and Supers are almost impossible to catch because they have a full intel channel and map, 200 bubbles on the gate, a local, and they can rat aligned to their pos/citadel because there are no scrams/disruptors on nullsec rats. 0 effort (right click, warp to 100), 0 risk (bubbles + local + intel channel + im aligned LOL), plenty of isk., My proposition maybe seem a little crazy, but in the state of current things, Nullsec ratting is safer than High Sec ratting because too many tools are offered to secure a system.
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 367	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:52:41 - [43] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. The way it's set up now with cloaky nullified almost insta warping Tech 3 cruisers, insta warping or stabbed interceptors it's just a mess and leads too all sort of weird fringe stuff like Slippery Pete's, Alpha Claws and cyno ceptors. Which are all amazing at not committing to a fight and grid, while being able to do some decent damage numbers and having a real impact without being able to or fight them make a mistake themselves. For Tech 3 cruisers shooting out to 250km while being nullified makes no sense and is just not fitting, those ranges should be the area of long range battleships and require a similar committent to the battlefield in terms of engageability. if the ability to fit a cloak, shoot out to ****** ranges for a cruiser hull and stabs would be removed from nullified ships (or remove nullification from ships that have those fitted) , it would be fine for Tech 3 frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser hulls. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? non combat ships are a tough one. On one hand it's handy and fitting for them (like the Yacht), but nullified blockade runners would be way to powerful for the cargo hold size. A transport frigate sized hull with nullification would be cool though, transport Tech 3 cruisers are in a good spot in that regard. They serve a niche without being disruptive (not a too big cargo hold). Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?** I like gameplay elements that give players the means to alter the space they live in and customize it how they see fit. Bubbles will just never be a 'fun' item for the people they are used against, that is the whole purpose of them. I would lower their HP and build costs accordingly. If you get caught you can just shoot them and get out faster, but they still serve the purpose of disrupting your access and giving defenders the ability to have a short while to get themselves sorted or get save. They do serve a purpose of buying time for players to get safe. Removing them from the game will just cause those players to live in even more remote areas (only last system of pipes, scouts in more systems out). CCP just introduced a rebranded ship to counter this (rorqual) and I think that is enough. Players who don't want to pvp would just adapt to there being no bubbles, so removing them serves no role except creating more empty space for players to complain about. Which is a fun topic in itself and almost the same as China's Fishing practices in which they kill everything in their waters and complain that there is no more fish and then causing a uproar and start fishing in other countries territorial waters, causing all kinds of international accidents, while playing dumb 'we are just fisherman trying to make a living, we have no fish in our waters'. Heavy ships like battleships should be less effected by them than smaller ships. Since they are a delaying tactic and heavy ships aren't known for their speed already. Baddest poster ever
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:54:47 - [44] - Quote handige harrie wrote: [/b] I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. SmartBombs BLOPS Hauler
Bertral Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:54:47 - [45] - Quote I don't mind nullification on t3 cruisers since the subsystem makes them terrible in combat for their price. However, interceptors should have never been nullified. They were fine before, as tackle/scout/solo pvp. Typical case of fixing something that's not broken. The main purpose of nullified interceptors was so they get to their objective faster. They don't. They just run AWAY from fights faster.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3673	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:56:03 - [46] - Quote Bertral wrote: I don't mind nullification on t3 cruisers since the subsystem makes them terrible in combat for their price. However, interceptors should have never been nullified. They were fine before, as tackle/scout/solo pvp. Typical case of fixing something that's not broken. The main purpose of nullified interceptors was so they get to their objective faster. They don't. They just run AWAY from fights faster. ceptors have been essential when chancing a fleeing fleet craping dictor bubbles at every gate BLOPS Hauler
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 266	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:58:22 - [47] - 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. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Zaryte Celestial Cartel Circle-Of-Two 55	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:59:22 - [48] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think there should be different tools for different jobs, so yes, there should be a type of ship that is designed to travel through bubbled space. However a ship that excels at this should of course not be as effective in other areas. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Similar to my answer from the first question. A good analogy for this would be mining ships. A retriever has low yield but high capacity whereas the covetor has high yield but low capacity. As it stands now, there's no interdiction nullified transport/DST. If there were to be one, it should have less cargo capacity AND tank than it's counterparts, since there's already "tools" for both those things. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I think they should exist and not decay. I think they already "decay" anyway since people can just shoot them. Although if they're going to continue to exist i'd rather they had a larger area of effect. People are forced to use dozens of them just on one stargate to lock it down and that just causes lag and a giant mess in space. One massive bubble 10 times larger than the current largest would be less annoying and achieve the same objective. (This final point is coming from someone who never anchors bubbles, i just encounter them all the time and i hate the lag spike when i load a grid full of them)
Xerxes Fehrnah Angelus.Mortis Fidelas Constans 63	Posted - 2017.02.01 15:59:35 - [49] - Quote TL;DR: make nullification a module, and when the module is applied, make it conflict with all weapons including ECM, tackle, and drones. Disallow fitting of weapons and cynos. That way if you are doing combat, you are vulnerable to defense fleets. Nullification is important for transport into and out of low sec and null sec as well as travel through wh chains to markets. We need nullification. But we don't need it for combat. Make bubbles and other deployables hackable. Allow me to use a data analyzer on them, play the minigame, and unanchor them and scoop.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1796	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:00:50 - [50] - Quote TL;DR: * Fewer, more powerful bubbles. Potential sov bonuses. * No or severely restricted interdiction nullification on combat ships. * People need a means of travelling quickly and unencumbered in non-combat ships. Semi-permanent area-of-effect warp inhibitors (bubbles) should be part of "owning your space". I mean, the stargate you presumably have some control of by it being in your space just decided it was going to bring in an entire hostile fleet, so having some bubbles is not a big ask. However, massive bubble camps with 30 on each gate is not my idea of fun. I'd much rather see a one or two specialist T2 bubbles, potentially in the region of 100m - 200m ISK, that are capable of enveloping a whole stargate out to say 50km, with the requirements that they MUST to be anchored within a certain range of a celestial (station, citadel, stargate) and no other bubbles can be anchored near them. Then make normal bubbles either decay after 6 hours, or don't let them be dropped near those sites at all. This would take it from a situation where we would have 40 bubbles on a gate, to maybe 2 semi-permanent bubbles on a gate. Make them reinforcable, but turn off their interdiction effects when RF'd, just like standard deployables. Give a bonus to range based on sov, maybe. Regarding interdiction nullification: Getting from point A to B in a dictor-nullified ceptor is extremely helpful. Travelling is among the most tedious parts of EVE, so doing it as quickly as possible, with as little interruption as possible, is a quality of life thing for me. However, should combat ships (those able to fit cynos / tackle) be able to do it? I think not. It's too overpowered. It has its place, but right now it's a bad ecosystem, Interdiction nullification and offensive action should be mutually exclusive in all but very specialist ships. I DO think there should be a cheaper, mass producible ship akin to ceptors that allow people to travel between two points quickly (Player-built luxury yachts) but they shouldn't be able to tackle you or light a cyno once they're there. I suppose a "traditional" solution would be to move dictor nullification to a module with a 1 or 2 minute cycle that grants the dictor nullification trait, but also knocks out ewar, cynos and DPS. Dictor nullified blockade runners? Yes please! Logistics is hell, and doing it is often thankless. Anything to make it a bit easier for the run-of-the-mill player who can't afford 8 billion isk for a personal jump freighter is a good thing and encourages a bit of self-dependency.

Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2911	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:01:03 - [51] - Quote Anchorable bubbles should most definitely have an expiry date when they either turn off or destroy themselves. Anchorable bubbles should not ever get any additional benefits that people float around in the forum, like a mild stasis webifier effect or agility penalty. If such additional bubble benefits got ever introduced, they should be reserved for Hictors alone. There are some limited cases where people BLOPS bridge nullified T3C around. As far as I know, Drone Proteii and Neut Legions are pretty popular for that, but they are the only real combat ship that can dish out some notable DPS and tank more than just a sneeze. There shouldn't be more of these ships but also not less because they play a vital role in grabbing and destroying certain target where other ships would just die before a bridge could get established. Nullified Blockade Runners would be pretty awesome, in particular because it would make their name finally carry some weight and not just be empty words; however, it would make traveling around, for instance via JBs, too safe and convenient. I also do not believe that shuttles should be nullified, because it would make moving around even cheaper than it already is (a travel ceptor costs barely 30M, a shuttle costs 15k). I do not think that the argument of "nullified shuttle allows noobs from high sec to explore deep dangerous space" holds any water. Someone who has not trained for a ceptor and informed themselves about how to travel "safely" in null sec has no place there and having him move around there provides no beneficial activities for neither him nor the residents in the area. If a noob really wants to explore outer space, that's what Yachts are for, but they come with a price, which in turn encourages those noobs to inform themselves about what they want to do first and discourages ever so slightly willy-nilly-carelessly flying around without any consideration. Or in other words: In my opinion, there should not be more and there should not be fewer cloaky-/nullified ships. Bubbles that do not require constant player interaction to stay active should turn off after a certain time. Bubbles, which require constant player interaction, ie. Hictor bubbles only, could get another little buff. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Edd Reynolds Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance 3	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:01:52 - [52] - Quote I agree with Capri that when it comes to hunting for ratters in NullSec, the balance between nullified tackle with non nullified support and bubbles to slow down that support is in a decent place, apart from the huge 100km+ walls of bubbles. The problems start when you get nullified ships that can do more than just tackle. See: Huge ceptor fleets in Sov fights, and Petes. One place to start could be keeping nullification on the tackle bonused ceptors, but removing it from the combat bonused ceptors. Another could be reduced/zero hardpoints on T3Cs when fitted with a nullification sub. These changes would preserve the hunter/tackle role of these ships, whilst removing some of the worst offenders of using nullification to fight without risk.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:02:17 - [53] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: 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. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? BLOPS Hauler
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:03:16 - [54] - Quote Xerxes Fehrnah wrote: TL;DR: make nullification a module, and when the module is applied, make it conflict with all weapons including ECM, tackle, and drones. Disallow fitting of weapons and cynos. That way if you are doing combat, you are vulnerable to defense fleets. and then large null groups sat back and ratted all day in peace interdiction is also important for small groups to be able to disrupt large groups BLOPS Hauler
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 367	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:04:49 - [55] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: handige harrie wrote: [/b] I think it's a bad thing they way it's set up now. It gives players the ability to just skip over parts of the game (interdictors, gatecamps and bubbles) and bypass mechanics without real counter. SmartBombs Baddest poster ever
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 266	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:07:46 - [56] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: 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. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? why do you think that I think I'm entitled to it being easy? I didn't say anything about that. Read my post and the one I quoted again. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Lugh Crow-Slave 3675	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:10:04 - [57] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: 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. A well fitted travel interceptor survives 2 faction fitted SB battleships. I wouldn't exactly call that "easy to smartbomb". They're not invincible, but correctly fitted ones are certainly not that easy to take down during travel. why do you think you are entitled to it being easy? why do you think that I think I'm entitled to it being easy? I didn't say anything about that. Read my post and the one I quoted again. 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 BLOPS Hauler
Robert Quaisado Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:12:15 - [58] - Quote So you are hindered in your game play by nullified combat ships? Well... You know what you usually say when it comes to cloaky campers being "unfair"? You usually say that you need to bait them (leaving aside the common opinion that this "mimimi" is the typical speech of a "carebear"). And that's it. You can use the very same way to argument here: Adapt your gameplay to that fact that there might get a fleet of nullified **** in. Besides: You won't find bubbles in HiSec, right? And there are fights, too. Should bubbles collapse? Well.... Should ships decloak automatically at some time after activation? :-) Even if it's no fun, you can shoot the unattended bubbles just like the other stuff drifting in space, Am I missing something?
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 68	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:16:07 - [59] - Quote 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 3676	Posted - 2017.02.01 16:16:36 - [60] - Quote 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? BLOPS Hauler

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

FistyMcBumBardier TURN LEFT 126	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:16:20 - [91] - Quote My main thing from a small gang perspective is that anchorable bubbles need to be reworked. They are commonly spammed in pipes on all of the gates leading up to the ratting pocket. Requiring burning through 100km's of bubbles even with proper bookmarks. The only options to this is to blitz interceptors through with the main force following later. As is the only way to deal with them is through damage, this allows very little room for counter play. Let them be hackable, unanchorable, or able to be stolen by enemy combatants. Or just give them a resource necessary for them to stay anchored, where if they run out of the resource they are free game. Give us the ability to roam through areas of space with a small little hacker, stealing the untended bubbles. Let there be trash collectors and salvager's in New Eden!
Gospadin Bastard Children of Poinen Grumpy Space Bastards 271	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:17:15 - [92] - Quote kasbah wrote: Deployable bubbles should exist but interference from overlapping bubbles should make them unstable and not work. Would fix bubble?-ú&@ed gates. Maybe overlap results in diminishing returns like PI. Have it impact the duration of the bubble or something.
Joan Andedare Licence To Kill Mercenary Coalition 15	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:17:43 - [93] - Quote combat ships: combat ships shouldn't be nullified. interceptors should be split ion a scout one with fast align time, nullification and reduced combat and tackle abilities. (something like a low dps ares without the point range bonus, maybe even a negative bonus to point range). there ships would be good as taxis and scouts. the other ceptor should have a tackle role, with a bit more dps than the scout one and a point/scram range bonus (5-10% per level) as well as a sig radius reduction for MWDing, but a longer align time, so they're more vulnerable when travelling. T3Cs should keep their nullification but the subsystem needs to restrict them to non-DPS roles (-50% rate of fire for all weapons, -50% optimal, falloff, missile flight time). this way T3Cs can still be used for utility roles, for explo, hunting, travel,..., but can't be used for damage. non-combat ships: the non-combat situations where nullification would be nice are hauling, travel, explo, mining. there should be a hauling ship with nullification for low volumes (max 500m-¦). the ship could have a small align time bonus per level (shouldn't be able to instawarp) for travel the scouting ceptor and T3C should fill that role, no need for another ship imo explo needs at least one ship that can be cloaky nullified. currently the T3Cs do that and it should stay that way. they are versatile enough to allow explorers to chose the ship and fit that best suits hteir habits and preferences, while still having enough drawbacks (price, speed, align time, low dps) to make them not completely OP I can't say much about mining, since I have next to no experience with it, but from my perspective there isn't any need for a nullified mining ship. anchorable bubbles: they should exist imo, but have their HP reduced by about 15% to make them easier to kill and they should have a 12h timer on them (cost and radius should stay the same). after the timer they despawn. this keeps them viable for active use (for a gatecamp, to delay hostiles so they can't interfere with an op or to give yourself some safety while ratting/mining/whatever in a system, etc.) but makes it very expensive and a lot of work top spam 100 of them on a gate. my reasoning for the nullified combat ships: the main issue is when those ships are able to do too many things at the same time, so the goal should be to redue the amount of roles nullified ships can do. with the loss of either DPS or align time ceptors would lose their role as cheap near-invulnerable harassment fleets, and instead be more focused on roles they're already used for extensively: scouting and tackle, at the expense of no longer being as viable for the other. T3Cs have a unique place in EVE since they are so incredibly versatile for both combat and non-combat roles. what they require however is a set of bonuses on the relevant subsystems (mostly nullification and ewar) that make them not viable for DPS roles (other combat roles, like as hunters should still be possible, those options are worth having imo).
Circumstantial Evidence 371	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:21:50 - [94] - Quote Perma-bubbles make gate lock-downs or camps too easy. Anchored bubbles should expire. They should be reworked to use the "new deployables" mechanic of dragging from cargo and dropping into space. Tech 1 could become fully disposable / non-recoverable once deployed. T2 could become the only type capable of being un-anchored and re-deployed. T2's tremendous cost (advanced technology!) compared to T1 should be rewarded. Here are some timings to consider (Hours). Option 1: T2 versions can be un-anchored and re-deployed to reset the timer Small: 1 Medium: 4 Large: 16 Option 2: Neither T1 nor T2 can be re-deployed: T2 should last 4-5 times longer than T1.
Oceane Chevalier Maple Moose The Bastion 2	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:33:36 - [95] - Quote Nullified combat ships Nullification at the core deters fights. For inty's, if you combine that with very fast align time, only the most specialized gate camps have a shot at catching them. It leaves the ship being able to choose it's fight 99% of the time. Back in the day, even without nullification it still gave the ship a good chance to choose but relied a bit more on piloting which again made it more interesting and led to more fights. It should not be risk free. The problem only gets worse in bigger fleets of those. For T3C, it could've been more complicated with the boosting role. Now that as shifted more to other ship types maybe not as much. As mentioned, as long as there are heavy drawbacks to make them less usable in large fleets but possible in solo that would work (i.e. heavy drawback on weapon range & limit EHP). A bit like you use a solo pilgrim. You have to commit. If we absolutely want something to scout with, transfer nullification from inty's to covops. A good scout is usually a covop or T3D with probes anyway. Nullified non-combat ships We should then transfer the taxi role of inty's to two spin-offs; a special shuttle, i.e. Leopard (to move a clone or a few BPC) & blockade runners (for slightly bigger loads). I would not put it on DST's to keep it balanced. Anyway DST's take too long to align so they can be easily tackled. Anchorable bubbles You can put a decay on it as mentioned but leave the ability to scoop it at any time during that window without penalty. Ideally I would shoot for 1 hour minimum on T1 small and up. Some said 30min but that's ridiculous especially if you are in a busy area and do not have time to manage the anchor/unanchor very often. People usually commit to a gate camp for an hour or more anyway.
Talon Kardee Titans of Doom Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:34:55 - [96] - Quote Hi there, I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was: O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping... I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay. But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess! You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system. Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way!
probag Bear Xiong Offices 107	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:35:22 - [97] - Quote Interdiction was perfectly fine just on T3Cs, before it was added to Interceptors. The difference between the two cases is that in the case of T3Cs, interdiction requires a sacrifice in combat capability. There is no such sacrifice for interceptors, and that is the big issue.
Akballah Kassan Flames Of Chaos 102	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:38:01 - [98] - Quote Bubbles should either disappear 4 or 8 hours after anchoring to prevent the stupid perma bubbled safe zones in null sec - OR there should be nullification rigs that can be fit to ANY ship.
RomeStar 4.20ly Mining Range Circle-Of-Two 582	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:39:41 - [99] - Quote Nullification is a good thing. Anchored bubbles without decay is a good thing. Those that say they arent are too lazy to burn bookmarks. Thats my opinion. If you remove nullification then you will ultimately kill the T3 cruiser market. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Kagehisa Shintaro Back Door Burglars Wings Wanderers 25	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:40:56 - [100] - Quote Blockade Runners should be Nullified, but along with Cloaky that's too OP. Maybe consider changing the name Blockade Runner over to it's cousin the Deep Space Transport. Ships currently called BRs (Viator etc) should be called the Deep Space Transports - they need the cloak to operate deep in hostile territory. Ships currently called DSTs (Occator etc) should be called Blockade Runners and given a form of Nullification, I mean the whole name suggests running Blockades.... Take away the +2 Stab if you need and adjust other specs too to balance it. As for combat, I think they are in a good place at the moment. Decaying anchorable bubbles is a good idea, not so fast that you must redeploy every day or so, but perhaps like weekly or so. Any company can ship. We space ship. - CCP Guard

Van Doe 14	Posted - 2017.02.01 17:54:26 - [101] - Quote Talon Kardee wrote: Hi there, I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was: O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping... I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay. But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess! You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system. Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way! How did this become a afk cloaky thread? I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3683	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:02:14 - [102] - Quote Oceane Chevalier wrote: Nullified combat ships Nullification at the core deters fights.. that is such a narrow view nullification is also used to get fights we use it to get into enemy space and drop blops fleets we use it to catch enemy fleets running while dropping dictor bubbles BLOPS Hauler
darkezero Doughboys Escalating Entropy 35	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:10:29 - [103] - Quote >Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think the term "combat ship" either needs to either be fleshed out or use the Ship Tree's definition of combat ship: "Hulls with good damage and defenses. Recommended for heavy frontline brawling." At the moment, interceptors, under the ship tree, are "attack ships" not "combat ships": "Hulls with good damage and mobility. Recommended for attrition, hit-and-run, and pursuit tactics." This doesn't even include the "support", "disruption", "tackling", and "exploration", which are all combat capable simply by virtue of being able to fit offensive modules, which can make for an interesting conversation since offensive modules can be used defensively (a hauler fitting an ECM burst to shake off tackle, as an example). Fortunately, the ship tree shows that they can overlap. I do feel Nullified "Combat Ships" should be allowed, but with all things on a case basis. I feel that Interceptors need to be toned down damage wise, or even split with the "fleet interceptor" retaining its nullification and losing all weapon bonuses while the "combat interceptor" loses nullification, but otherwise would not feel strongly if they stayed where they are. >How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? A blockade runner could be a combat ship by virtue of being able to fit a point and a cyno (if you count point+cyno as combat), similar with the yacht, so again it depends on how one defines "combat ship". The only true non-combat ships being the shuttles and freighters, they have no offensive capacity at all. At the moment, I feel if shuttles had a T2 version, that they could be nullified, but otherwise, are fine as they are. Nullified freighters would be kind of scary. >Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I do believe they should exist, and should also decay. I say give the a week, if not accessed similar to mobile depots they then go poof. I do feel there should be a limit to the number on a grid though, say 10 or so.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3683	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:12:49 - [104] - Quote darkezero wrote: split with the "fleet interceptor" i think this is actually a good idea it would be a good way to help mange balance BLOPS Hauler
Brewlar Kuvakei Adeptio Gloriae 338	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:15:57 - [105] - Quote Blatantly obvious things wrong with indirection. Inderection benefits defenders far too much. You should not be able to warp into a field if people can not warp out. Ie if you bubble a gate for 200km then you should have to slow boat that 200km as well as the poor SOB who jumps into it. If you pop a mobile field then warp too's should have to slow boat from the edge of your field. Basically make inderction a two way affair instead of the 1 way it is currently. I also believe but to a much less important extent, Inderection should not be an afk or nonplayer activity. All indirection should be manned and use a ship to do so. Anchored bubbles should be removed from game but if you decide to keep them then of course they should expire. The current problem being ratters hiding behind 2 gates of 200km bubbles, you're not killing those people without nullified ships or travelling via wh or login tricks. Make these changes and delay local by 5 mins in null, 2 mins in low and wow eve would be a pvp slaughter house again :)
Dota Locke Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:24:39 - [106] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes, you should be able to travel fit combat ships. That being said I wouldn't be opposed to a change that gives a penalty to combat performance for doing so. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Yes, because otherwise logistics gets to be a thing only done by vets in jump freighters. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? As someone who gets killed more because of them rather than benefit from them I still say yes. Anchor-able objects actually make the world feel alive instead of just an empty skybox you float around in.
Galendil THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two 35	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:34:58 - [107] - Quote Poision Kevin wrote: +1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less. 10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space. T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks. Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess. Yachts Definetly yes. Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze. ^^This^^ but also, should limit the number of bubbles within X amount of km of another bubble --- \| --- *Flammis Acribus Addictis* --- \| ---
Protical nul-li-fy Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 18:35:21 - [108] - Quote My thoughts: Anchored bubbles should have timer/fuel. Example: 100 LO (Full capacity) fuels bubble for 6 hours Short of removing nullified ships, perhaps make it a module or a skill with a cool-down. Example: Jump into a bubble- use interdiction "nullifier" module to escape bubble. Can't use again for 1 hour. Probably for ceptors only.
Shalmon Aliatus Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen 44	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:00:11 - [109] - Quote Before you waste time on this, fix cloaky campers first. They are a much bigger problem then interdiction and bubbles
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore 15092	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:03:22 - [110] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Nullified small combat ships, sure. Dual Cyno scram fit Cloaky/Nullified insanely High Hitpoint Tech3 ships are an abomination that needs to DIAF. Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? No problem with these as they can still sometimes be caught. Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes and IMO yes.

Borat Guereen Chao3 Chao3 Alliance 87	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:15:46 - [111] - Quote Thanks for asking the community directly about that. I believe nulification should be split into two types of nullification: - nullification that allows a ship to warp from within a bubble - nullification that prevents a ship from being dragged or stopped by a bubble. Nullification should not be built in the hull, but available for those ships from module limited to one of those types of nullification. This way combat ships benefiting from nullification would lose part of their power, much like T3 cruiser do. Some modules could have a cool-down to limit the number of time a ship benefit from nullification in a row. I'd also would like to see a new module that deactivates bubbles which are not linked to an active ship module (i.e. not affecting HICs bubble to encourage using those ships defensively) temporarily at a high cost cap cost for example, to prevent other potential hostile action for a few seconds from this ship and make it vulnerable. Static mobile bubbles should have a slow loss of HP over time, so they get easier to destroy over time and eventually self-destruct after a week, forcing those using them to maintain their protective wall every week. Candidate for CSM XII Check our Minarchist Space Project!
Aalaria Black THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two 24	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:19:33 - [112] - Quote I'm sure someone has already mentioned my opinion on bubbles and nullification but for the record: I think the mechanics work fine as they are. You still have be paying attention to not get caught on a gate camp in null even if you are nullified. Campers can fit insta-lock ships and catch all but the fastest aligning/warping interceptors (and those have to sacrifice basically everything to get the require speed). We regularly decloak even cloaky/warpy T3s so ... get better at camping :) Instead of timers on bubbles, maybe make them require fuel of some type, so the campers have to keep putting fuel in them to keep the bubble up - I mean that's what you have to do with towers right? entosis uses fuel, sieging uses fuel, cyno's use fuel ... kind of a no brainer really. Then when bubbles run out of fuel they are still anchored just not active. Soooo .. i think there are plenty of ability / counter abilities for nullification. Don't add any more ships with nullification capability. What i'd really like to see discussed is CLOAKING!!! there is no real counter to cloaking, once someone is cloaked up in a system they are that way undetectable until downtime. Then they login, cloak up and undetectable. I'd like to see cloaks take fuel, or generate heat and have a cool down, or some high level probing skill introduced to detect very faint cloak emissions, etc etc. Currently that's one of the things in the game that has no counter.
Enochia Starr Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 122	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:35:07 - [113] - Quote Interceptors should lose interdiction. It's silly how many can just fly right through, and is ruining sov mechanics. If not, make it a module, with significant costs.
erittainvarma Fistful of Finns WE FORM V0LTA 40	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:35:53 - [114] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? From solo to small gang (1-10) perspective, I think current nullification and interdiction mechanics are in pretty good balance and I wouldn't touch them / remove or add nullification to any ship. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Anchorable bubbles should exist, but they should decay over time. I would also add option for everyone to unanchor a bubble if it reaches certain hitpoint threshold, no matter did it reach if by decaying or players shooting at it. Make it possible to steal bubbles!
Equto Imperium Technologies 56	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:37:53 - [115] - Quote Aalaria Black wrote: I'm sure someone has already mentioned my opinion on bubbles and nullification but for the record: I think the mechanics work fine as they are. You still have be paying attention to not get caught on a gate camp in null even if you are nullified. Campers can fit insta-lock ships and catch all but the fastest aligning/warping interceptors (and those have to sacrifice basically everything to get the require speed). We regularly decloak even cloaky/warpy T3s so ... get better at camping :) Instead of timers on bubbles, maybe make them require fuel of some type, so the campers have to keep putting fuel in them to keep the bubble up - I mean that's what you have to do with towers right? entosis uses fuel, sieging uses fuel, cyno's use fuel ... kind of a no brainer really. Then when bubbles run out of fuel they are still anchored just not active. Soooo .. i think there are plenty of ability / counter abilities for nullification. Don't add any more ships with nullification capability. What i'd really like to see discussed is CLOAKING!!! there is no real counter to cloaking, once someone is cloaked up in a system they are that way undetectable until downtime. Then they login, cloak up and undetectable. I'd like to see cloaks take fuel, or generate heat and have a cool down, or some high level probing skill introduced to detect very faint cloak emissions, etc etc. Currently that's one of the things in the game that has no counter. Going off this and to not make alliance/corp logistics more aids than it currently is.Maybe a new structure that will automatically fuel nearby bubbles. Then you have something to target to take down all bubbles and you only need to fuel one rather than 25 objects.
Erroch STK Scientific DRONE WALKERS 9	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:50:21 - [116] - Quote Well, my two bits on this. Nullification is an interesting beast. Maybe instead of making nullification an all or nothing ship trait make it a module that can be fit to ships that are 'nullifyable' currently that hampers their combat potential similar to what was done with warp core stabilizers. This gives the option to nullify the ships or have them run at 100% functionality, again similar to what was done to alleviate complaints about warp core stabilizers. I'm mixed on anchorable bubbles. They are the only real way one has to modify the 'terrain' a fight is going to take place on so to speak. Having them last a short amount of time removes some of their defensive (and offensive) uses. Maybe a middle ground. Two lines of bubbles, one that are one shot deployables with a duration, others that are permanent (until blown up) but require fuel to operate? This means if you want your perma 30 bubble gate camp, it will require interaction with the bubbles themselves and put a logistical limit on how many you are willing to fiddle with.
Dracones Tarsis Inc 64	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:58:17 - [117] - Quote No opinion on the combat ship nullification. But on the industrial ship side I will say it might mix up the "just use a jump freighter" null delivery meta a bit which would be a good thing. I'm not sure if that should be a blockade runner add-on or not though. I will say that my occator feels 10x more useful than my viator because I can just MWD/Cloak trick on the occator, it carries way more and if I get snagged I have a lot more survival options(burst ECM, jump drive, tank it back to the gate, etc). Restricting cargo space on any nullified transport wouldn't make much sense either. Typically you'll have long chains of jumps delivering through null and if you need to make 20 trips to push 100k m3 through people won't bother with it and just stick to jump freighters.
Zanar Skwigelf Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra 70	Posted - 2017.02.01 19:59:35 - [118] - Quote Combat Ships - nullification for PvE ships in null is a good thing. Escalations can be several jumps away. and the only real alternative to safely get there involves jumping a carrier into the escalation system. Non-combat ships - Making blockade runners warp cloaked and bubble immune is far too powerful. It would make more sense on dst's, and it makes the most sense on t1 ships that cannot cloak+mwd anchorable bubbles - I think they should not have a timer, however I think they should not be placed directly on a gate (similar to citadels). While a lot of drone land systems are lazy and bubble the gates, there are several systems that place strategically important bubbles, which allow the occupants to catch the neut and kill them without gate camping.
Dagorel Gendo Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:05:34 - [119] - Quote Interdiction on some non-combat ships is a very useful tool and I would not want to see it go away, but I do not like uncounterable effects, giving the Hictor the ability to have a script catch-anything-smaller range bubble would be a good way to provide some way to counter. I dont think ceptors need it stripped from them, if they do, they go back to the realms of AFs and nobody would ever use them. Someone floated the idea of a "interdiction module" which would be a good way to go about it, have some negative effects, smaller holds (limiting cyno) though I would not put negative resists on it. if it reduces the hold, maybe give it to Blockade runners, but they already are pretty slippery and adding that would be extremely slippery. Yatts are fine. shuttles on their own, no, a t2 shuttle? maybe, but its a shuttle...... Defense in this game is hard to come by and you dont want to completely degrade it. I would not want to see bubbles go away, but some limitations on their usage would be in order so the preverbal 100km bubble wall is not a thing. The idea of a single superlarge bubble for structures is interesting, which would allow for the idea of fueling to keep it functioning. If we have strong defensive bubble, then potentially give lifespan to smaller bubles, or give them very small fuel hold and not sustanble to keep going long term. And to echo another point, I too would like to see a counter to AFK cloaking.
Silas Grimm Pathway to the Next 7	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:11:51 - [120] - Quote No timer on anchored bubbles in J-Space. Connections we bubble are transient to begin with. Imposing a timer or a requirement to 'man' them does not work well in this space. Though I agree on a timer for them in empire.

Capqu Half Empty Rollback to 2012 1256	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:12:39 - [121] - Quote Talon Kardee wrote: Hi there, I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was: O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping... I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay. But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess! You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system. Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way! afk players can't do anything if you suspect them of botting then report them if you're afraid of people literally not at their keyboard then i don't know what to tell you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Silas Grimm Pathway to the Next 7	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:18:42 - [122] - Quote Talon Kardee wrote: Hi there, I took a 4 years break of eve after some very intense years before. So one of my 1st impression after coming back was: O M F G...they still did not fix that passive cloaky camping... I am not talking being cloaked at all - active cloaking/scouting is totally okay. But I still think that one passive/afk cloaked player is able to shut down a system with active players in it is a total mess! You are the nerds! Make it happen that afk cloaky players decloak after a whatsoever period of time so they can be probed down and therefore removed from system. Once again: My opinion is just: NO passive player should be able to affect active players in this way! Move to J-space where active cloaky people AND passive cloaky people are completely invisible. Problem solved...no one in local to disturb your bearing operation....or is there?
Shalkto Bedlam Industrial Group Inc. Apocalypse Now. 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:27:36 - [123] - Quote Nullified Combat ships i think is fine, any game mechanic can be abused and removing interceptors nullification sounds like overkill to me. Yes griefing people who don't necessarily have the same combat skills as others is a hallowed trophy sought by many of the sheltered individuals of eve however, throwing the rest of us a bone to be able to drop the middle finger at those types is just as good too. Bubbles should have an anchor distance and a decay timer i'm surprised this has never been sought before it is ridiculous what some people do with these bubbles. Non combat nullified ships should exist too the blockade runners make more sense than anything in the world to have this ability because what good are they at blockade running if they can't actually run a blockade? May as well just call em really fast cargo ships that stop suddenly.
Smack Talk THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:31:20 - [124] - Quote Personally I think all nullification should come from a module like it does with T3C's,basically forcing you to sacrifice something else in order to obtain it. In my scenario I would make an exception for shuttles,yachts and maybe blockade runners/DST's. I also agree that unmanned bubbles,especially 40-50 on a single gate is ridiculous. I believe those bubbles should either be limited or take fuel to operate if they are going to be unmanned.
Blind Mongolian Chinese Gold Farmers Rollback to 2012 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:37:08 - [125] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? I think it's certainly within the realm of discussion that there are legitimate reasons for some ships to have interdiction nullification. Examples of this are non-combat interceptors i.e. Ares, Stiletto etc. being used to scout for larger fleets. That said, I believe agility on these ships should definitely be a trade-off for being nullified. Unlockable interceptors have very little counterplay, and has honestly had a negative impact on the game. That said, combat interceptors like the Taranis, Crusader, etc. should not be nullified in this way. This ability too freely allows them engagement selection, and for ships designed to be combat frigates, this usually negatively impacts those who want to fight them. T3s are a more complex discussion but I believe ultimately if the covops cloaking subsystem is allowed to continue to exist in its current iteration, it should also share significant agility penalties as mentioned earlier. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Shuttles have too high an agility to qualify for interdiction nullification in my opinion, and in this regard, I believe they fill a decent role in their current form - fast cheap travel in hisec. Blockade runners may be viable, but at agility penalty. Yachts are a decent middle ground and as they are a limited item, I don't think it's necessary to change them as they are. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I would be surprised to find very many who would say that they don't need to exist - they are a great part of nullsec gameplay on both PvE and PvP sides of gameplay and provide a lot of depth that lowsec otherwise does not. I think their decay is something for discussion, and I personally think removing anchorable bubbles at downtime might be a viable option. However, I believe giving killmails for these bubbles (something that has been requested for years) would be a good start by giving players an incentive to clear them out manually.
Natheniel Mostly Sober The Bastard Cartel 116	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:37:40 - [126] - Quote I believe the bubbles should have a timer. But I also believe that systems should be able to be secured. So what about instead of a timer, it requires a small fuel cost? Also, i had an idea to help with system security and to give it a bit more of a dynamic then just 'anchor 200 bubbles on a gate' What about a sov structure upgrade that allowed you to interlock bubbles on a gate to form one large bubble? This mod would require a sov level for it, you would need to fuel it x number of bubbles + bubble normal fuel costs. So it wouldnt be super cheep to do, but would also reduce lag issues with large number of bubbles on gates and give attackers a central point to attack, the interlock node of the bubbles on the gate which would bring down the entire setup but would have a lot of EHP with a damage cap, or have a reinforce timer with the damage cap like citadels. "Life is as a storm, one must be prepared for the hardship and scorn. But with in this is a light, one for which we must fight. For hope is our weapon and our dreams are our shield. When fully armed we can not be felled from the field."
yamamoto suhara DEEP SEXPLORATION 10	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:46:12 - [127] - Quote 50 large bubles anchored on nullsec gates become v common thing this days.is this good for the game ,for player v player interaction?is just making game experience worse...there are a lot of things that need to be adressed hope u gona change something.u got my 3 votes:)
Muon Farstrider Partial Safety 42	Posted - 2017.02.01 20:52:54 - [128] - 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.
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:07:38 - [129] - Quote Anchorable bubbles They are fine right now, can be a bit anoying that they can stay in space for days. Could be solved with them being unchored after a few hours, letting the user anchor it again or someone else scoop it. nullified combat ships T3 cruisers are fine with it, they are expensive and unique. They enjoy perfect safety because they use both covert ops cloak and nullified, if any change should come to them it would be in a T3 cruiser rebalance/re-work. Interceptors is a double edge sword. When Fcing i love that i can use them as scouts. But they can also be used to harass with no consequence. For me one easy solution could be split the interceptors in 2 classes. One class for combat and one for tackle/scout. The first one would lose nullification and get small buffs in other areas and the second one would keep nulification and the e-war bonus and get some other bonus (maybe probe launcher fitting reduction?) but lose the ability to use guns/neuts. Just removing nullification will only help people to be safer and removing tools from people that hunt. This way you can tackle someone but you can't kill it. This will let people call for help and make the agressor use ships that can't just get away at any sign of trouble. nullified non-combat ships Yachts are ok. They are expensive(compared to interceptors), cant carry much cargo. Blockade runners, i dont think they should get nullification. That is giving perfect safety to "large" amounts of cargo movement. I imagine shuttles would replace the void of taxi ceptors if they lost nullification. On one hand they will die really quickly to smartbombs, on the other hand they are cheap and easy to get into. I don't really know how i feel about them
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3399	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:14:16 - [130] - Quote I'm fine with the nullification ecosystem, there needs to be only some tweaks to anchorable bubbles, namely: 1. make them generate a killmail 2. 10x their cost 3. lower their HP Done. I'm my own NPC alt.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:21:02 - [131] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. 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? Nothing in EVE should be lock downable without a player presence. Not every ship should be 100% catchable. Please dont kill interdictors or nulified TIII's. Everything is in a state of decay, bubbles should not be exemp from this sad fact about our universe. keep up the good works o7
Dracones Tarsis Inc 64	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:22:46 - [132] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: Blockade runners, i dont think they should get nullification. That is giving perfect safety to "large" amounts of cargo movement. We already have perfect safety for large amounts of cargo movement: jump freighters.
Captain Campion Campion Corp. 34	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:24:44 - [133] - Quote Q. Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? A. No. Nullification results in less fights. Less fights equals less fun. Q. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? A. Fine with these. Blockade runners need a buff. Q. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? A. You should have to show up with a dictor or hic. Bubbles also give me eye cancer.
Scotsman Howard S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 171	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:26:03 - [134] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol does test have trouble keeping its ratters safe from the little guy with a cyno? LOL we dont have space for ratters (or at least enough to matter right now). I just pointed out what I considered a broken mechanic. Also if you read the post other than just my alliance tag, you would notice I mentioned that I as well have cloaky camped ratters in their stations. T3Cs are the only ships with covert cyno AND interdiction meaning they eliminate half the options of killing them. Covert Cyno on others ships can still be intercepted by bubbles, so they can be killed by a bubble behind a gate and decloaked. T3Cs can only be killed via bad game/server ticks or a good/lucky uncloak on a gate camp. Let me put it to you another way. A recon ship can be caught on both sides of the gate via bubbles and die. On the IN gate, you need to bubble the ship and then get a decloak. You have time to decloak the ship due to the bubble. It is hard but not that bad considering a t3c. You cannot kill a t3c on the side of the gate you are jumping FROM (out gate) because of a bubble. He laughs and jumps through regardless. You can kill him on the other side BUT it can only be done via an uncloak because a bubble does not stop him. This means you have at most 5 seconds to: See him uncloak Burn toward him decloak him notice he has been uncloaked lock him scram/disrupt him Much harder to do period. NOTE: I left out the possibilities of an instalocker because both ships are affected, but if you need to rely on someone living in England for your gatecamp, that is another issue by itself. TLDR: T3C are much harder to catch then other ships that can have a covert cyno.
Scipio Artelius Savage Moon Society 46748	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:28:47 - [135] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: I'm fine with the nullification ecosystem, there needs to be only some tweaks to anchorable bubbles, namely: 1. make them generate a killmail This for me. I'm preparing a longer answer, but with Tipa's post here, I think this would be a great approach to the issue of anchored bubbles everywhere. The owner of an anchroed bubble gains a killmail if someone in the bubble tries to warp while being killed, even if the person that anchored the bubble isn't online. Why not a lossmail when you lose one? MTUs generate lossmails for their owner. If the same was to happen with bubbles, players wouldn't be anchoring them and then just leaving them. There would be a lot more unanchoring happening.
Seraph IX Basarab Angry Dragons The-Culture 798	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:57:59 - [136] - Quote I think it's an extremely useful tool for allowing content to be developed. Sending in a quick scout to get tackle on something pushes people into conflict. Really the only people I can see complain about ceptors are krabs who want to AFKtar and talent-less gate campers salty over not being able to just F1 on ceptors. I wouldn't even mind making it an AoE module to be used with fuel (one ceptor can get their fleet through bubbles once or something) and making specific bubbles that could counter it. Adding more variation, not less, to the game is good. Is it perfect as it is now? No. Can we do more and develop it further? Certainly.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 684	Posted - 2017.02.01 21:59:27 - [137] - Quote STEVE I'm sure you remember one year ago on CSM X we sat in CCP's offices and asked for bubbles to have shorter lifespans (1 to 2 days) AND to generate killmails a la modern structures. These things are out of control. They pollute gates and get lost in random w-space pockets, never to be scanned down or cleared (no incentive). There is no way they were ever intended to be used in the dozens/hundreds on gates, lasting weeks and weeks, or cluttering up w-space dscan for just as long. Give them a way to expire faster or give people a reason to MAKE them expire!!! Love, Chance You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
mister dudeguy Zansha Industries Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 22:33:03 - [138] - Quote Making anchored bubbles drop killmails would be a good thing. Some sort of Universal Nullification module would be, I think, Too powerful. Restricting Universal Nullification to T3 and dedicated transports/haulers Is healthy. How about Faction Nullification? Interdiction drop bubbles of their races type. Nullifiers go through bubbles of their type and multi spectrum bubbles. The current anchored bubbles are multi-spectrum. Caldari Navy gravimetric Warp field Nullifier Warp speed -10% This module looks for the gravimetric signature of interdiction bubbles along the warp field and adapts the ships warpfield to nullify the interdiction. Caldari Navy Mobile Warp Disruptor This structure projects a blue warp disruption field. Faction fields could consume fuel and be larger and have more tank then T2 bubbles. Pirate fields could be bypassable by 2 different types and have odd effects. Perhaps phenomena generators? Most fights happen inside of a bubble, and it would be interesting if a WH style effect was possible under the titan class. This also could make asymmetric fights possible where One side is in the bubble and under some effect and another side is outside the bubble. Also I want to drop actual Blue balls on the field...
JahBaba Know your Role League of Unaligned Master Pilots 2	Posted - 2017.02.01 22:44:28 - [139] - Quote Anchored Bubbles Should have a timer or fuel, There are so many Ratting Pockets with 100 Large Bubbles around the Gates its just cancer. Nullsec isn't Highsec, but with Citadels it feels alot like it. Before Citas you could send your Interceptors to the Anoms and your Interdictor to the Station and if your lucky you could catch them. Its safer than never befor to make alot of money in your Ratting Pockets. Lets say 60 Minute timer, which is plenty for Gatecamps and 5 Minutes before the Timer ends you get a Timer Animation. T3 Nullifed I dont think Nullified T3 Cruisers are broken. If your Nullified you already nerf your DPS.
Roman De'Sol Quantum Solicitation 0	Posted - 2017.02.01 22:45:42 - [140] - Quote Funny you should bring this up right now.. I've been looking for a way to screw with someone's camping Mobile Depot in null and was thinking of putting up a few Mobile Warp disrupters around it so I can camp it properly and stop the guy zooming in and just picking it up after I reinforce it.. 48hours timer on them is bloody ridiculous.. If you're going to change it, give them the same 30 days timer as a Mobil Depot.. Training the skills for mobile disrupters takes a long time, a lower timer just makes it an evil long train for no benefit.. And ships, leave them as they are.. There's other ways to kill them from smartbombing to insta-lockers..

Space Captain Austrene Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 211	Posted - 2017.02.02 00:11:43 - [141] - Quote Chasing interceptor fleets is the least fun thing in eve because there is no win scenario. If they have the advantage they kill someone. If they don't they run away and are impossible to catch. Every other fleet in eve has a way to counter AND KILL it. This is the important part. Can you ** interceptors off? yeah. If they stay on grid with caracals they're gonna eat **. Can you actually catch them though and pin them into a deadend system or catch them coming up a pipe? No. The most you can do is chase them around and make them warp off over and over.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1570	Posted - 2017.02.02 00:15:27 - [142] - Quote 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. Removed post and those quoting for the above. Also executed CSM privilege and stickyed this thread. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 763	Posted - 2017.02.02 00:40:30 - [143] - Quote My suggestion, make the interdiction nullifier a module that can only be fit on specific ships much like the covert ops cloak. Nullification shouldn't be removed completely as it is good to have variety; although it needs to be balanced with drawbacks much like any other module. Interceptors in particular have no drawback to being nullified which they should. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Mafone The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 5	Posted - 2017.02.02 01:01:09 - [144] - Quote Poision Kevin wrote: +1 on timer on anchorable bubbles. Make it costly and non one time effort-less. 10x Large T2 bubbles takes forever to kill in a 10 man cruiser roam and effectively makes even retards safe in ratting space. T3 cruisers with their subsystems serves a role. Interceptors kind of does too but with fozzie sov that being a thing... Sucks. Bloackde Runners Maybe, but tbh no I guess. Yachts Definetly yes. Shuttles, sure, a medium smartbomb will kill it or a sneeze. Yes pretty much this: Nullification has a point and use for both combat and transit. I dont think shuttles need nullification inties hard enough to catch. T3's with subsytems definately - they are already balanced for less damage etc. There is perhaps a case for interdictors and command destroyers too to encourage small gang pvp. I wouldnt go with blockade runners (already cloaky) or dst's Bubbles do need a timer - you see piles of them sitting in wh space been there forever and the bubble camps ppl use in null are OTT - Fair enough 1 or 2 I have seen more than twenty on multiple gates which tbh should be an exploit. I would put a limit on how close they can be together much like other structures ideally no less than 100km apart or perhaps a max of say 6 on a grid. And they must expire (say 24-48 hours if not scooped) and generate killmails (to encourage their destruction) These measures along with delaying local in null sec by say 30 secs would allow much more pvp and encourage small gangs again which presently have to mwd thro huge bubble camps a while local tells everyone they are there.
Elinara Yamamoto Latex Entosis Insignificant Others 49	Posted - 2017.02.02 02:59:46 - [145] - Quote Been playing in Nullsec for about 4 years now, there are some good ideas in this thread for sure! Q. Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? A. T3C and Ceptors are the only ones. Short answer to this is: yes! But I am totally for decreasing the DPS on Interceptors so that large Ceptor fleets loose some appeal as a fleet fight tool. T3C also could have an increased penalty, if you use the subsystem you loose half your EHP. That seems all fair to me, Slippery Pete's don't need EHP anyway. Make it all more dangerous, but without taking the Inty away as a safe sightseeing and clonemoving ship. I have only lost 1 Inty to smarties. If the yacht would not exist I would be very very against taking away the Inty as the only safe travel ship for Nullsec! Q. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? A. Shuttles, no need to make them ignore bubbles, they are cheap and quite safe without instalockers or bubbles present. Take another ship if thats not good enough for you. Don't change Yachts as they need to stay the way they are if Inties ever loose their bubble immunity, I mean we need to have some way of making a safe-ish trip to the Eve gate! Blockade runners could get a increased cargo maybe, but definitely not bubble immunity. They rely on cloak and agility, bubbles make them have some sort of danger. DST could be made bubble immune imo, especially if they are to become too slow to do MWD Cloak trick (not sure if currently possible) So they would then have their tank as a defense and could warp if not tackled fast enough. Maybe we could have even a new type of cargo ship that is bubble immune but only has a good local tank and cyno etc as its defense and leave current DST unchanged? Q. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? A. Has been said plenty of times. Killmails. I am not against decay, but maybe not needed. I still remember the disappointment as I killed my first solo bubble and expected a killmail. Not instead of killing them I just make bookmarks to go around them.
Ari Kelor Bagged Milk 30	Posted - 2017.02.02 05:04:05 - [146] - Quote Nullification effects are good, I like where it stands right now, although Inty Fleets can be annoying, but in the end they serve a good purpose as they are easily scattered. I would like to see the feasibility of inventing t2 shuttles that are nullified. Another idea from above is to have the nullification be a modual, like a t2 modified warp core stabalizer, similar to the covert ops cloak but the same huge penalties, and ship fitting restrictions. I haven't really ever seen a good use for the Surgical Warp Disrupt Probe, I know that it has specific situations that they are used in. But as an interdictor pilot I bought a batch of 30 when they first came out and haven't used them all. It would be interesting to modify the use of these to include nullified ships, and finally give them a more focused role. Another option is to have a t2 variant for the same effect. The point is that there needs to at least be one if not multiple options to stop nullified ships, especially if there is discussion about putting more in the game. Anchorable Bubbles must have a timer on them just like every other deployable that has come out recently, they are a relic of pre-Incarna eve and must be updated to fit the current game. Something akin to the cyno inhibitor with variables between 1 hour to 4 hours based on the tech level and size, likewise the cost of the bubbles need to be reduced to compensate for the new expendable nature. In certain constellations the bubbles are out of control, miners and ratters are completely safe because of scouts and 120 km radius bubble defenses. This is a good discussion to have and I'm glad it's being taken seriously.
Hol Vegr Operation WormBear Absence of Light 0	Posted - 2017.02.02 05:20:37 - [147] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? If you are talking about the existing nullified ships, yes, there is a clear counter to interdiction nullification. Don't get rid of a feature that exists in a balanced space. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Shuttles no, there should not be a simple easy CHEAP way to get around. Fit for the task, shuttles should stay as low-tech tin cans. The tradeoffs are good and I don't see room for nullifying more ships. You have a lot of options for hauling, and there should be some important decisions to make on which of these to use. Yachts are just lol. They're not cheap like a shuttle, they don't warp fast like a shuttle or interceptor, they can't warp cloaked, they can no longer higgs fit for rolling wormholes, they don't have a significant tank, and they don't present a threat on grid. If somebody really wants to fly a Yacht around through null more power too 'em. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? YES! NO! "prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. " If there's not a player presence, then anyone can come in and destroy the bubbles. I don't see the problem here.
Siobhan MacLeary Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation 223	Posted - 2017.02.02 05:58:33 - [148] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? No, except in the case of T3 cruisers fitted with the appropriate subsystem. Nullification should, on other ships, be a choice that negatively affects combat ability. Insta-warping nullified interceptors have removed a massive amount of the tactical function of area warp denial. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Ships that exist solely to transport pilots or very small amounts of cargo - and cannot warp cloaked - are a reasonable target for nullification. Shuttles, basically. Yachts and Blockade Runners can warp cloaked, ergo have no need to be nullified since they already have tactics at their disposal to evade warp interdiction. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes, anchorable bubbles should continue to exist, and additional forms of static emplacements - mobile turrets, anyone? - should be introduced. Said static emplacements should be subject to the decay and reinforcement mechanics like modern deployables, EG, if left floating unattended in space for more than 30 days they should unanchor, and when damaged should offline and enter a reinforcement period of reasonable length, perhaps four hours. Mechanics should also be introduced to limit the number of static emplacements within a given area ongrid, so it becomes mechanically impossible to surround a gate with hundreds of bubbles. A maximum of six bubbles and twenty-four mobile turrets within a given 1k km cuboid is where I would start, with further adjustments made as necessary. GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1159	Posted - 2017.02.02 07:56:59 - [149] - Quote Interceptors Interceptors are in a good place now. Smartbombs on gates are a form of counter-play. Although it is possible to make a travel interceptor have a lock time <2s and 10k or so eHP, not everyone is so well informed or paranoid; it is very EvE-like to have trade-offs and pitfalls built in. It would be extremely useful for the nullification to be toggle-able, similar to modes in T3Ds, for when you want to get caught in bubbles, but I think in general this part of interceptors does not need to be changed - it is class defining. Blockade Runners Absolutely do not need nullification. Clever use of perches or tacticals, or the built-in 90% fatigue reduction makes these ships already exceptionally good at their role. Interdictors, Heavy interdictors, etc, should mean something. Currently there are decisions in fitting and in piloting that can hand the day to either the BR or a camping Interdictor - nullification would take many of these away. Luxury Yachts Lower skill travel interceptor. Keep it. T3Cs Eh, this one is complicated. So a lot of people prefer the Tengu as a blops hunter. Personally I think it's terrible at hunting, but one of the things it offers over other choices is nullification - as does the rest of the T3C line. So long as there are gigantic static bubble camps, there needs to be a way around them, and until bubble spamming gates is no longer a thing, there needs to be a ship or ships that counter it. Except on either hunting fits, or fits that explore, the nullification sub doesn't see much use to my knowledge - it's fine to keep around as is until such a time as giant bubble camps aren't 'free'. Anchored Bubbles I don't like the idea of them generating killmails. There's already enough killmail bloat for all the structures in the game. On one hand yeah, it would make people have a 'cost' for spamming them, but on the other hand they would just use alts to do so. I also do not like the idea of static timers on them. Rather, make rats attack them. If someone wants to hold vigil over a bubbled gate for as long as they please, that's what they want to do, for whatever reason, they should be able to do it as long as they can actively defend them. Maybe this is too much strain on the server - it has long been an observation that rats typically cease acting ratty (shooting drones, etc) when a player (even cloaked) is not on grid with them. However, I feel it would be interesting - players can set them up, players can defend them, but if they are left alone long enough, rats, including drifters, will get to them. It's hard to get an exact measure of what is acceptable and what isn't. The stray bubble on a gate left behind occasionally has effects way beyond what its original owner intended - this is very EvE-like and cool! However the 300 bubbles people will put on a single gate that are there forever and ever...well that's wrong! Slow guaranteed attrition to rats would do much to make the big bubble camps require maintenance, especially if drifters become interested in them more and more over time, while they would not remove so many random bubbles from space that it becomes overly boring to travel. If there was some sort of attrition mechanic like this, or even just a limited time they stay anchored, then it would be time to pull nullification from the T3Cs. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Mark Hadden United Warriors The Romulans 78	Posted - 2017.02.02 08:40:09 - [150] - Quote Nullification is aids and should not exist in the game, or at least in T3 cruiser context for at a decent cost. In any case not for interceptors or other entry level cheap ship.

Captain Awkward Republic University Minmatar Republic 135	Posted - 2017.02.02 08:52:30 - [151] - Quote Nullified T3s : Nullification on T3s is IMO ok. They cost a lot, have warp and align times that allow them to be caught and you should get something for the investment you put on the field. The only thing that is questionable is nullified + covert. Nullified Interceptors : I can only immagine that nullification was given to interceptors to strengthen their role as the ship that gets the initial tackle on something. And it worked very well for that particular role and I think interceptors should be unchanged in that regard. However, interceptors are still able to put out some dps and in larger numbers are able to bring down allmost any target. The so called combat-interceptor is a real problem, espacially in regards to fozzy sov. One of the reasons why no one bothers to use assault frigs is because combat-interceptors are the way better choice. Nullification was given to interceptors to spark out more content. But as they are now, they create less content because they are able to elude every enagement that they dont want. The only real counter to combat interceptors is more combat interceptors. How can this be addressed : Remove nullification from interceptors and introcude a new passive highslot module that gives nullification but disallows all weapons and e-war except webs, points and scrams. You dont need DPS to fulfill the role of a superfast tackle ship. Bubbels : I have seen dead end systems where the gate was covert in a clusterfuck of bubbels 24h. Thats just stupid. I am very mutch for bubbels to have a timer. Even a long timer like 30min or 1h would do the job.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.02 09:10:16 - [152] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? No. If you want a ship for combat then stay and fight not run. Interceptor a ships for intercept not for fight, they should not have the combat capabilities while nullified. If you want to move goods use transport ships not super fast, almost insta align nullified interceptor. T3C already have drawbacks to nullified subsystem but we must wait for great s*** storm of our times (T3C rebalance). How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? No for BR, they already can be safe travel hulls. DST maybe? Shuttles, Yachts - maybe. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? They should decay. I have seen so many bubbled dead end pockets in my travel, super safe for ppl living there. They shouldn't be removed, I saw very clever gameplay provided by them. "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.
Scipio Artelius Savage Moon Society 46749	Posted - 2017.02.02 09:32:12 - [153] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: On one hand yeah, it would make people have a 'cost' for spamming them, but on the other hand they would just use alts to do so. Yeah, this is a good point. Killmails for bubbles would end up having little value in controlling their proliferation.
Solaris Vex SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 10	Posted - 2017.02.02 09:44:04 - [154] - Quote All the nullified combat ships have low dps and tank relative to their cost. Removing nullifed interceptors would also make moving slave clones a huge pain. I think nullification is in a good place right now.
Michal Jita Lords Of The Universe 29	Posted - 2017.02.02 10:52:02 - [155] - Quote Give us killmails for each killed butle like other structures do and we will get them sorted for you. A lot more of them would have been killed if that was the case. T2 interdiction bubble being a expensive ammo and Launcher but should work for all or most nullified ships. Just couple of ideas to add to the mix.
Vuteq Buzzy Bee Entertainment 0	Posted - 2017.02.02 11:26:28 - [156] - Quote I'm very new to the game, but why there would not be ship / module to "package" up to cruiser class ship, module / ship would be 1 time use it would be nullified with 2/3 warp stabs and mwd capable to get to destination fairly safty to destination, there u should bring same module to "build in yours ship" and make trip back if u would to. "Packaging" ship takes some time so combat probing would be possible. No nullification on ships in general. As for bubles, they should consume some kind of fuel.
Tol Vir Lazerhawks 8	Posted - 2017.02.02 12:54:44 - [157] - Quote Anchorable bubbles: These need dealing with, as some areas of ratting space are just cancerous to try hunt in and when it means you jump into a system and spend 30 secs having burn out of the bubbles so you can warp it makes this no fun. While I do think its a valid method to secure space, Have them give KM's, only last a certain amount of time before needing to be deployed again, and have rats able to shoot them. Would go along way. Or just having it so you cant have more than one within a certain range of each other. Interdiction nullified ships: Ceptors are fine, Maybe dropping the nullification from the combat ceptors and just leaving it on the fleet ones could be a good idea. But as peolpe said a group of smartbombing BS's on a gate can really ruin a ceptors day. when people do ceptor fleets that is one option and people are right to point that out BUT!! i dont think its a reason to remove it from ceptors. Some have even said make it so being nullified means you cant use scram or web etc... That idea is just idiotic, having a ship that can run through bubbles and get initial tackle is a great thing for the fleet and means ratters can't be entirely afk. T3C's are fine with being able to use nullification subs as it pretty much gimps the ship except for some very niche uses dont think looking at this is needed at all. Nullification for other ships: Having a small cargo bay ship that is nullified would be a good thing, the Blockade runner i feel should have this while it would need a smaller bay to compensate for making it harder to kill.
Saelyth POS Party Ember Sands 27	Posted - 2017.02.02 14:32:39 - [158] - Quote In regards to anchorable bubbles... what if they required fuel blocks to operate, based on size, with variations depending on whether the bubble is T1, T2, or even faction (should it exist in the future)?
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 628	Posted - 2017.02.02 14:33:05 - [159] - Quote Nullification: Nullified Ships, especially in combination with very agile hulls like Interceptors or cloaking devices, are just not fun and way to risk averse. Nullification, if it has to be in the game, should come from a Module you can fit on certain hulls. Also, it should give a drawback on agility, depending on the size of the hull (Frigate gets a higher Penalty than a T3). I would like to see as less nullified Ships as possible. Especially on Hull sizes smaller than cruisers or ships that are very agile or able to cloak in general. Anchorable Bubbles: I like the approach with the Fuel consumation. Make every bubble have a fuel bay and let is consume a small amount of fuel (depending on the size of the Bubble). So Bubble-Barriers are still valid, but need at least a minimum of maintenance.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 37	Posted - 2017.02.02 14:37:56 - [160] - Quote Solaris Vex wrote: All the nullified combat ships have low dps and tank relative to their cost. Removing nullifed interceptors would also make moving slave clones a huge pain. I think nullification is in a good place right now. Having a nullified ship to move your pod (shuttle) makes sense. It has the added effect of allowing alpha clones to move out when joining null corps while limiting to very little else. It's the having nullification WITH combat capability that is the problem. Twitter: Sullen_Decimus Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus

Arehm Bukandara Rowan Trade Guild 0	Posted - 2017.02.02 15:12:07 - [161] - Quote I am for their being a high slot module or a rig that would make ships nullified. I would like to see the T3 subsystem nullification stay. To balance interceptors, maybe make them where do hardly any dps. Replace their weapon bonuses with e-war or navigation bonuses. I truly believe nullified blockade runners and DSTs would increase the population in null.
Arehm Bukandara Rowan Trade Guild 0	Posted - 2017.02.02 15:20:14 - [162] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: Solaris Vex wrote: All the nullified combat ships have low dps and tank relative to their cost. Removing nullifed interceptors would also make moving slave clones a huge pain. I think nullification is in a good place right now. Having a nullified ship to move your pod (shuttle) makes sense. It has the added effect of allowing alpha clones to move out when joining null corps while limiting to very little else. It's the having nullification WITH combat capability that is the problem. I strongly agree with the idea of nullified shuttles. I can see that it can be very hard for new ppl to move out deep parts of null especially the way it is now. Maybe create T2 shuttles that would be nullifed?
Olmeca Gold Pleonexium 63	Posted - 2017.02.02 15:31:34 - [163] - Quote Nullified T3s: I predict people who have strong negative feelings about them will mostly be gatecampers. Other than that some of those who do small/large scale fleet consensual pvp in null and wormholes might have negative feelings about them. If you remove nullification from T3s some of these people will be happy and will probably be given a slightly more interesting and meaningful gameplay. But here is the catch. Given that how Eve should be an interesting risk/reward game (which rewards risk-taking), nullsec with the current state of local is really safer than it should be for PvE ships. The only thing you have to do survive is to dock when someone comes in local. And on top of that you have intel channels, bubblefucked gates, system wide cyno jamming, etc etc. A carrier or a super will see a roaming enemy fleet coming from miles away and dock. Aside from ragerolling nullsec static wormholes (which is accessible only to few WH groups who you will notice keeps killing supers), perhaps the only way to even have a chance to catch/kill these PvE ships is to use a nullified covops Tengu with a blops fleet. Because it is fast, combat probe capable, and it doesn't take 30 precious seconds to burn away from the bubblefucked gate in a Tengu (which is all a PvE ship needs to warp off). And if you ever go to null, you will notice %95 of main ratting systems have bubblefucked gate. Nerfing anchorable bubbles is not a solution here, because those who rat in supers will %100 have the means to spare some alt toons to bubble their in gates. If you covops nullified tengus, you will blow a HUGE hit to BLOPS gameplay, and make nullsec even more safer, which should be highly undesirable. Furthermore this gameplay (especially active hunting) is more interesting and fun than gatecamping, which is a rather lazy method of finding kills. So you don't really want to nerf BLOPS to buff gatecamping, which will force more people to play Eve in a more lazy and less creative way. Bottom line is that you can try and find a solution to combat capable nullified ships, but this game should maintain a combat probe/covert cloak/covert cyno capable nullified ship as an option if you want to avoid making it less interesting. By definition this also has to enable those who want to safely carry precious low volume cargo through null but if gatecampers think this is lame, well BLOPS groups will think it is a decent price to pay to keep the nullsec the risky place it should be.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1159	Posted - 2017.02.02 16:01:21 - [164] - Quote Captain Awkward wrote: However, interceptors are still able to put out some dps and in larger numbers are able to bring down allmost any target. The so called combat-interceptor is a real problem, espacially in regards to fozzy sov. One of the reasons why no one bothers to use assault frigs is because combat-interceptors are the way better choice. Nullification was given to interceptors to spark out more content. But as they are now, they create less content because they are able to elude every enagement that they dont want. The only real counter to combat interceptors is more combat interceptors. I am not so sure about some of this. No one uses assault frigates for two primary reasons, namely, most of them are very slow and they pretty much got their role taken by T3Ds. Malediction is a very different ship than a Vengeance, which is a very different ship than a Confessor. The same can be said about Ares/Enyo/Hecate - the ares exists for tackle, and the other two are more brawly. What's happening with Rorquals is currently is similar to what happened when they first gave Interceptors nullification. Yes, one Rorqual with all the gimmicks they gave it is able to see use and defend itself reasonably well - 20 of them are absolutely broken as heck and out perform blops and carriers in almost every regard. Personally I think they did a good job in separating the combat interceptors from the fleet interceptors - they play differently and have different strengths. When you scale interceptors en-masse, yes, they can be a little challenging, but not really unbeatable. It's sort of a chicken and egg problem - the vast majority of people in null are not looking for a fight, so if you want to play with them, you need ships/fleets that can force the issue. Null is already so hilariously safe that interceptor fleets are justified - you can scout them out many jumps away, and the home advantage should let you stomp them should they actually chose to engage seriously - you have to be pretty lazy to actually get caught by one. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1159	Posted - 2017.02.02 16:18:27 - [165] - Quote Olmeca Gold wrote: If you covops nullified tengus, you will blow a HUGE hit to BLOPS gameplay, and make nullsec even more safer, which should be highly undesirable. Furthermore this gameplay (especially active hunting) is more interesting and fun than gatecamping, which is a rather lazy method of finding kills. So you don't really want to nerf BLOPS to buff gatecamping, which will force more people to play Eve in a more lazy and less creative way. Questionable. If you took away the nullification of T3Cs without adjusting bubbles, people may grow even more complacent, and feel even more secure behind a bubble camp. Speaking from my experience at least, 95% of the time, the hunter being good has nothing to do with catching something - it has to do entirely with how much the target is paying attention. If they did not have to fear a nullified hunter, my prediction is they would grow vastly more complacent and less aware if they have bubbles out. We live in an age when most of the good ratting ships are either oversize prop, have MJDs, or can rat 100% aligned - the very instant they feel threatened is the very instant they are off grid - this alone is another problem for a later post of course, but the heart of the matter is their reaction time determines the success of the hunt. Anything that makes them feel safer potentially serves to lower this reaction time. While I agree they should not remove nullification on T3Cs until bubbles are not 100% 'free' interdiction, if they did remove it before doing so, it wouldn't be the end of the world for blops - not by a long shot! There are many, many other choices for hunters, and ones that have proven track records in some of the most heavily defended space in the game. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
mkint 1426	Posted - 2017.02.02 16:33:33 - [166] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: Solaris Vex wrote: All the nullified combat ships have low dps and tank relative to their cost. Removing nullifed interceptors would also make moving slave clones a huge pain. I think nullification is in a good place right now. Having a nullified ship to move your pod (shuttle) makes sense. It has the added effect of allowing alpha clones to move out when joining null corps while limiting to very little else. It's the having nullification WITH combat capability that is the problem. Strange isn't it... WCS is such a terrible module because of its downsides that you'd never ever fit it on a ship meant for fighting in, and yet ships with complete nullification have either no downsides, or so little as to not really matter. What if nullification was an active module (make it restricted in the same ways those old exploration shuttles had restricted module slots) and make it have downsides when active. At first blush, I'd say huge mass/agility penalties while active, though of course the details would need a more thorough examination. Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Dirk Stetille Ascendance Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2017.02.02 17:03:21 - [167] - Quote I think there's the possibility for a few new mechanics around anchorable bubbles, and I especially like the idea of a decay. My thoughts on bubbles: We already have a variable range on anchorable bubbles, and, intuitively, that range steadily increases from a small tech one bubble of 5km, all the way through to the large tech 2 at 40km. If CCP were to introduce a decay on bubbles, I would hope to see the time-frame fall some in roughly these intervals. small tech 1 - 3 hours small tech 2 - 6 hours medium tech 1 - 12 hours medium tech 2 - 24 hours large tech 1 - 48 hours large tech 2 - 72/96 hours (couldn't decide if it should double at each new tier) I would suggest the faction variants of these bubbles would have a time-frame falling halfway between the tech 1 and tech 2, in the same way as range is currently set up. It could also be an interesting mechanic to have the range that the bubble will disrupt at slowly decay after, say, half the lifetime of the bubble, allowing for it to still be usable, but increasing the skill required to place a bubble for maximum effectiveness. I do believe there should be a hard lower range cap, though, at between 10 and 20% of the maximum range - so for a small tech 1 bubble, the lowest disruption would be 1km, whereas for a large tech 2, it would be 4km - this is 20% and 10% respectively, with mediums falling somewhere in the middle. As for nullification, I've always felt that the blockade runner lacking nullification is an odd design choice. Obviously deep space transport ships have a built-in +2 warp core strength, an I feel that the blockade runner should have something to compliment this. That said, I would probably also remove the combat capability from blockade runners, making them agile and difficult to be caught, but also increasing the amount of skill and attention pilots would need to pay when moving a blockade runner. I also wouldn't want to see any more combat-capable cloaked+nullified ships introduced to the environment. Flying such a ship is currently the realm of Tech 3 strategic cruisers, with other combat ships just being one or other. This introduces a cost and skill element that combat style, which I think works and should remain.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18563	Posted - 2017.02.02 17:06:43 - [168] - Quote Interceptors Honestly not too fussed over this one, gives them a good reason to be used. Blockade Runners These ships must never have nullification, far too overpowered. Luxury Yachts Rare enough to not matter much. T3Cs They need to lose the ability to fit both cov ops cloaks and be nullified. Anchored Bubbles Honestly I think unmanned bubbles should stay as you can blow them up easily enough. I would however like to see them generate killmails as that brings them in line with the other structures. No reinforcement timers.
Olmeca Gold Pleonexium 63	Posted - 2017.02.02 17:56:00 - [169] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Questionable. If you took away the nullification of T3Cs without adjusting bubbles, people may grow even more complacent, and feel even more secure behind a bubble camp. Speaking from my experience at least, 95% of the time, the hunter being good has nothing to do with catching something - it has to do entirely with how much the target is paying attention. If they did not have to fear a nullified hunter, my prediction is they would grow vastly more complacent and less aware if they have bubbles out. We live in an age when most of the good ratting ships are either oversize prop, have MJDs, or can rat 100% aligned - the very instant they feel threatened is the very instant they are off grid - this alone is another problem for a later post of course, but the heart of the matter is their reaction time determines the success of the hunt. Anything that makes them feel safer potentially serves to lower this reaction time. While I agree they should not remove nullification on T3Cs until bubbles are not 100% 'free' interdiction, if they did remove it before doing so, it wouldn't be the end of the world for blops - not by a long shot! There are many, many other choices for hunters, and ones that have proven track records in some of the most heavily defended space in the game. I'm not saying the hunter will be out of options. There is the option of logging off in a ratting system, or Gulnar style tactics to catch DED runners which I myself rely on a lot. And I don't say catching a target relies purely on reaction time. But here is what I think happens. In current state of null, over %95 of anomaly runners (miner or combat ship) will notice you in intel channels, or in local, or they are bots, and they will get safe. So in one sense it's not about the reaction time as you say. Of the remaining %5, I say at least %2 will survive if they were given 30 seconds more reaction time. But given that these make up %40 of all targets that a blops group catches, this IS a significant blow on blopsing. For the carelessness part, I really don't think removing nullification from T3Cs will have any significant impact on null PvE'rs mentality, increasing the voluntary risk they are taking, in either ratting more or staying on grid more after a neutral appears in system. If a neutral appears and you dock because there is a multitude of places he could be coming from (logging in, wormhole, jumping to a blue covert cyno, etc etc). So nerfing nullification at gates will not make them feel safer. Another issue is if you remove nullification people will %100 give up T3Cs for covert cyno hunting, which was the initial point in using them. Instead they will go for 1-use ships such as covops frigs (and they are 1-use because upon cynoing up they will die to the target before target is dead). This is due to that if they kept up with Tengus there would be shitloads of deaths to gatecamps, because covops HKs have to take 60-70 gates to completely cover their range, and you don't wanna die to gatecamps everyday in 1 billion ships. Also buzzards etc. will become faster at catching targets if Tengus are deprived of nullification. In turn, being forced to use 1-use frigates for covert hunting will be a logistical nightmare for many fleets, which will need to replace the ship (or even bring back the pod from its home station), to a region which they probably reached by jumping distances or taking wormholes, meanwhile you can just keep on hunting in a Tengu upon killing a target.
Winter Archipelago Autumn Industrial Enterprises 828	Posted - 2017.02.02 18:41:30 - [170] - Quote Arehm Bukandara wrote: Sullen Decimus wrote: Solaris Vex wrote: All the nullified combat ships have low dps and tank relative to their cost. Removing nullifed interceptors would also make moving slave clones a huge pain. I think nullification is in a good place right now. Having a nullified ship to move your pod (shuttle) makes sense. It has the added effect of allowing alpha clones to move out when joining null corps while limiting to very little else. It's the having nullification WITH combat capability that is the problem. I strongly agree with the idea of nullified shuttles. I can see that it can be very hard for new ppl to move out deep parts of null especially the way it is now. Maybe create T2 shuttles that would be nullifed? I would be in full support of a T2 shuttle that had nullification, but only so long as it had no fitting options, similar raw HP as a regular shuttle (but with the increased racial resists of T2 ships), and reduced cargo (yes, even below the 10 m3 that shuttles have now). Give them a Spaceship Command IV and Racial Frigate IV requirements and they would be usable to Alpha clones, but not without 4 days of training (or 2 days of training for Omega chars). For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki

Endecroix One More Nightmare 35	Posted - 2017.02.02 19:24:58 - [171] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Interceptors have their place in locking down opponents for the rest of the fleet to then attack. What is not so fun is when you have mass interceptor gangs that are performing both of these functions. However, there are good counters to that fleet composition so I don't feel it is in any OP although it can be anti-fun at times. But it is less anti-fun than removing the ability to get tackle onto something past a well bubbled gate. T3s fundamentally change their capabilities when nullified. I think to remove the ability because of what is now a relatively old doctrine that will then impinge on an awful lot of explorers is not the greatest ideas. Combat ships are used for PVE and PVP and whilst people may be vocal about the PVP implications they aren't so much about the PVE aspects and they do need to be taken into consideration. You don't want to push away travelling explorers away from the the more dangerous parts of New Eden. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? You remove these and you just give people another reason not to go to nullsec etc. Again there are hard counters to these ships. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes, they should but there needs to be mechanics to ensure they are not overused in locations. There should be a proximity check possible and I would like to see them used in a different way. Eg online larges for 1-2 hrs medium 4-8 small 12-16 hrs (T1 to T2 timers). That way the more inconvenient ones will need some sort of constant attention. The can sit there after that time has gone but the need to be onlined again to actively prevent passage.
Kenji Noguchi SQUAD V DARKNESS. 31	Posted - 2017.02.02 19:44:51 - [172] - Quote Shuttles are the natural choice for nullified ships. They are for personal transport ONLY, and can't really do anything harmful, nor cloak, nor stay on grid unless they want to get vaporized (I don't understand why they don't also have a jump fatigue reduction bonus too, like transport ships have). I understand the rationale of the interceptor having nullification as "it's specialized in getting from place to place very fast". However I don't agree, I think full nullification is too much. I don't know the solution, though. Maybe make them able to warp away from inside a bubble, but still get dragged to the border of them when warping in so they have to at least burn to gates? On the other hand, a ship I think should have nullification are the "Covert ops" scout ships. They fill the role of the military stealth scout, at least in theory. They would begin to be used this way if they were nullified.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1159	Posted - 2017.02.02 20:15:16 - [173] - Quote Kenji Noguchi wrote: On the other hand, a ship I think should have nullification are the "Covert ops" scout ships. They fill the role of the military stealth scout, at least in theory. They would begin to be used this way if they were nullified. Philosophically, maybe, but if you know how to fly them properly, bubbles change basically nothing - a good covert ops pilot and fit has no issues with bubbles - it is good that there are some compromises to be made in fitting to get here to get this benefit. EvE may be suffering in general from over-design and over-specialization, where TII ships are so specifically tailored that there is a general lack of vigor and creativity in fitting, and I don't think we want to go there any more than we are. I don't think covert ops are in a bad place at all at the moment - how you fit a ship should be as important as how you fly it, and at the moment, pilot knowledge and skill makes covert ops highly resistant to bubbles. Balanced. Olmeca Gold wrote: Another issue is if you remove nullification people will %100 give up T3Cs for covert cyno hunting, which was the initial point in using them. Instead they will go for 1-use ships such as covops frigs (and they are 1-use because upon cynoing up they will die to the target before target is dead). This is due to that if they kept up with Tengus there would be shitloads of deaths to gatecamps, because covops HKs have to take 60-70 gates to completely cover their range, and you don't wanna die to gatecamps everyday in 1 billion ships. Also buzzards etc. will become faster at catching targets if Tengus are deprived of nullification. In turn, being forced to use 1-use frigates for covert hunting will be a logistical nightmare for many fleets, which will need to replace the ship (or even bring back the pod from its home station), to a region which they probably reached by jumping distances or taking wormholes, meanwhile you can just keep on hunting in a Tengu upon killing a target. I respectfully disagree. Cov-ops ships are not one-use ships for hunting; provided a response fleet does not reach it before the 60s Covert Cyno is up, we find that cov-ops and prospects typically last 3 or more drops. We actually favor them because response fleets are a death sentence to hunters - I would rather not lose a 1 bill tengu every time a response fleet shows up, which is often. A casual perusing of your activity indicates that you appear to hunt where there are fewer reliable response fleets so yes, we are working with different environments. My window for black ops is about 10 seconds - that's how long you have on grid before you are overwhelmed with frigates. That being said, most larger targets like snakes are never a problem for our smaller hunters, especially given how fast our damage applies them - by the time our hunter is even locked by the target, its basically over. That, coupled with a small sig and tank, makes them keenly effective. Skilled Cov-Ops and Prospect pilots have no trouble burning many gates or through many camps - they are exceptionally hard to catch for all but the most skilled sabre pilots. While I see that we happen to prefer different hunting tactics, I consider one of my main play areas blops, and see the Tengu and all other T3 hunters as trash honestly - I wouldn't see them losing nullification as a threat or even a change to my play. My assessement is that they are useful and practical in a limited amount of situations when you have everything under control as far as reinforcements, escalations, and counter-drops, but when these are not true, you pay 20x more than you need to get the job done, and risk feeding your opponents - the very ones you were supposed to be using blopsy tactics to pick unfair fights in the first place. Things change a good deal if you are trying to drop on gangs or actual things that can fight back quite dramatically, but in these cases you do not need the combination of cloaky and nullified to effectively initiate on them. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
exiik Shardani Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics 92	Posted - 2017.02.02 21:21:43 - [174] - Quote what about make one more functionality to entosis module? it can "entosis buble" and after some time buble it is unanchored and may be scooped <3 and please do not forget about other mobile structures: i really do not like when some generate killmailsf( MTU, depot, cyno inhib...), and bubles NOT.... or some r expensive and decay after hour (cyno inhib) and some r cheap with no decay... make all mobile things clear with one rule (KM and decay) sry for my English :-(
Olmeca Gold Pleonexium 63	Posted - 2017.02.03 04:00:40 - [175] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: I respectfully disagree. Cov-ops ships are not one-use ships for hunting; provided a response fleet does not reach it before the 60s Covert Cyno is up, we find that cov-ops and prospects typically last 3 or more drops. We actually favor them because response fleets are a death sentence to hunters - I would rather not lose a 1 bill tengu every time a response fleet shows up, which is often. A casual perusing of your activity indicates that you appear to hunt where there are fewer reliable response fleets so yes, we are working with different environments. My window for black ops is about 10 seconds - that's how long you have on grid before you are overwhelmed with frigates. That being said, most larger targets like snakes are never a problem for our smaller hunters, especially given how fast our damage applies them - by the time our hunter is even locked by the target, its basically over. That, coupled with a small sig and tank, makes them keenly effective. Skilled Cov-Ops and Prospect pilots have no trouble burning many gates or through many camps - they are exceptionally hard to catch for all but the most skilled sabre pilots. While I see that we happen to prefer different hunting tactics, I consider one of my main play areas blops, and see the Tengu and all other T3 hunters as trash honestly - I wouldn't see them losing nullification as a threat or even a change to my play. My assessement is that they are useful and practical in a limited amount of situations when you have everything under control as far as reinforcements, escalations, and counter-drops, but when these are not true, you pay 20x more than you need to get the job done, and risk feeding your opponents - the very ones you were supposed to be using blopsy tactics to pick unfair fights in the first place. Things change a good deal if you are trying to drop on gangs or actual things that can fight back quite dramatically, but in these cases you do not need the combination of cloaky and nullified to effectively initiate on them. My recent activity has been some solo activity but I FC large bomber fleets and we drop mainly on carriers (or larger if we are able to catch them). As an NPSI FC without blue standings I hunted and hotdropped in every single null region in Eve. We used many covops people as well but only as a starter hunter. Nullification makes every difference when it comes to bubblefucked regions (which most of them are). Meanwhile when I check your zkill its obvious you either do lowsec or northern areas which bubbles are used way less and people rely on responses more. Maybe that explains why our judgement regarding the value of T3 nullification have been different? I agree that frigates have a higher chance vs battleships. But you're neither gonna blap a carrier nor you will be able to jam its fighters before it blaps the Buzzard. It's gonna 1 shot it. You are doing things right if you got the fleet or backup cyno on grid, if you are inexperienced this will not happen as well. If the carrier won't kill it, the rats in anomalies will randomly turn on it and kill it. That being said, maybe some %25 of the buzzards will survive a carrier because he was afk etc. That's still not a good number for a fleet deep inside enemy territory so the hunter needs to burn back all that distance. We handle a decent size response pretty easily but say a 30 man svipul fleet would force us warp off grid. But by the time enemy gets such overwhelming numbers, the 1 minute cyno timer will usually be over. Thus we rarely lose any Tengu. Meanwhile Tengus (even though they are usually cheap t2) are actually tanky enough to survive until our falcons get on grid and jam carriers/rattlesnakes. And their nullification helps get past the bubblefucks and tackle targets fast enough. I agree that what I said might not be valid for every single BLOPS group in this game, given the fact that we operated in all regions in all sizes of fleets and (assuming from your zkill) you operated in a limited amount of regions I think what I said could be more general than you think. Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler. Youtube channel.
Annoying Orange Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition. 0	Posted - 2017.02.03 05:04:29 - [176] - Quote Quote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes. however as someone else has said they should not be as affective in combat as there non nullified equivlant. Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? I think the game is fine in its current state. Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes they should exist. If it is a must that a change is needed then why not give them a fuel bay and have them burn a fuel at rate where max fuel capacity = to 4hrs for T2 and 2-3hrs for T1 all other stats stay the same. Once fuel has ran out the bubble drops but the item it self stays in space where a decay timer starts. I think this timer should last 48hrs befor decay finally makes the item decays from space. These changes should make it so groups dont bubblefuck gates with 50+ bubbles as each and everyone will need to be refueled every 2-4hrs. Solo and small gang PVPers leaving bubbles behind on gates will not be a issue as fuel will run out not long after they leave. Decay timer of 48hrs allowes players to scoop up bubbles that they might have left behind
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.03 06:23:43 - [177] - Quote baltec1 wrote: T3Cs They need to lose the ability to fit both cov ops cloaks and be nullified. Absurd. Why do I need nullification in game full of instalocking ships then? To warp off from unmanned bubble? If blobs have problem with them it's not a problem at all. No matter how you nerf it the ability to warp off the bubble will still be a thing. Problem with T3C is that they must be rebalance in the near future and near is 2017. "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.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.03 09:39:28 - [178] - Quote Out of the head idea: reverse nullification - what if bubbles will always affect on nulli hull but warp disruptors and scramblers won't? "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.
Foggy Hedgehog Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.02.03 09:58:32 - [179] - Quote It will be great, if shuttles and blockade runners will be nullified too (but ceptors and t3c will not). It will make travelling easier, but it will make hauling of low volume expensive stuff harder. I know about insta-warp ceptors, but it is dumb when a lot of peoples (Rorqual, Mining barge pilots) training interceptors only to use them as shuttles. It will be great, if interdictors will be nullified (instead of ceptors and t3c), because interdictors are kamikazee-boat at this moment, always die first and it is annoying to die in your own bubbles, because you cloak device is on recalibration, you hull is paper-thin and you are not fast enought to ecape. In large fleet fights interdictor pilots usually even not hope to dock their ships back. They are one-off hulls, which is dumb. Anchorable bubbles should exist. They should not decay. If you don't like them - just shoot them. It would be great, if their anchoring time and price will be increased a bit, so peoples will no use them anywhere they want, almost for free. if peoples want to cover their ratting ships with 10 large mobiles - so be it, but they should lose significant amount of money, if they will not come to defend their anchorables.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18563	Posted - 2017.02.03 11:04:31 - [180] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: T3Cs They need to lose the ability to fit both cov ops cloaks and be nullified. Absurd. Why do I need nullification in game full of instalocking ships then? To warp off from unmanned bubble? If blobs have problem with them it's not a problem at all. No matter how you nerf it the ability to warp off the bubble will still be a thing. Problem with T3C is that they must be rebalance in the near future and near is 2017. Having both together makes the ship uncatchable. Cov ops T3C will still be able to get past bubble camps in the same way every other cov ops can but will be in the same boat as every other cov ops. Nullified t3c will still be a powerful tool for fleets. Having both together on the same hull is just too much power in one hull.

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18563	Posted - 2017.02.03 11:06:07 - [181] - Quote Foggy Hedgehog wrote: It will be great, if shuttles and blockade runners will be nullified too Do not give blocade runner nullification. They already warp as fast as intercepters, align out like a frigate and can worp cloaked. Adding nullification to them as well will make them impossible to catch.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.03 12:09:59 - [182] - Quote baltec1 wrote: baltec1 wrote: T3Cs They need to lose the ability to fit both cov ops cloaks and be nullified. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Absurd. Why do I need nullification in game full of instalocking ships then? To warp off from unmanned bubble? If blobs have problem with them it's not a problem at all. No matter how you nerf it the ability to warp off the bubble will still be a thing. Problem with T3C is that they must be rebalance in the near future and near is 2017. Having both together makes the ship uncatchable. Cov ops T3C will still be able to get past bubble camps in the same way every other cov ops can but will be in the same boat as every other cov ops. Nullified t3c will still be a powerful tool for fleets. Having both together on the same hull is just too much power in one hull. 1. They are not uncatchable, you have to make more than 2 man gatecamp to do so. 2. Both subsystem, covop+nulli, nerf damage and tank substantially. Think outside the blob sometimes, baltec1. With your proposal you'll still have valuable T3C for fleets, but huge nerf to single and small group playing. Because that single nullified T3C is so much treath... "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 18563	Posted - 2017.02.03 12:27:02 - [183] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: 1. They are not uncatchable, you have to make more than 2 man gatecamp to do so. It wasnt long ago every fleet was sending cloaky nullified t3 booster ships though gates with 1000+ hotstiles sitting around because they were garenteed to get though. No gate camp can catch them and its one of the biggest complaints out in null space. Nobody even bothers trying. Jeremiah Saken wrote: 2. Both subsystem, covop+nulli, nerf damage and tank substantially. Not nearly enough. These things will happily run 10/10s and will out preform the other cov ops cruisers easily. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Think outside the blob sometimes, baltec1. With your proposal you'll still have valuable T3C for fleets, but huge nerf to single and small group playing. Because that single nullified T3C is so much treath... Yes its a nerf, much like how remote titan DD weapons was a nerf. This is simply too powerful to have at the same time.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.03 12:59:36 - [184] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: 1. They are not uncatchable, you have to make more than 2 man gatecamp to do so. It wasnt long ago every fleet was sending cloaky nullified t3 booster ships though gates with 1000+ hotstiles sitting around because they were garenteed to get though. No gate camp can catch them and its one of the biggest complaints out in null space. Nobody even bothers trying. It wasn't long ago. So what changed during this time? Because T3C are not the only hull doctrines to fly in null AFAIK. baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: 2. Both subsystem, covop+nulli, nerf damage and tank substantially. Not nearly enough. These things will happily run 10/10s and will out preform the other cov ops cruisers easily. Sure they are, but you must spend few hundred millions to do so, and I assume we are tanking about Tengu here? I don't think you will fly that blinged ship in fleets...and if you can't catch pve ship in ded site with combat recon you just bad. There must be counter to indirect warp disrupting and nullifier subsystem is that counter. You may nerf dps and tank ability even more but nullsec bears will still be crying that they can't catch everything. Null shouldn't be safe for people living there and 100% predictable. Do we need more nullfied combat ships? No, as T3C example shows. "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.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Sherwood Hisec Industrial Technologies 315	Posted - 2017.02.03 13:13:59 - [185] - Quote I believe I stated this before What would be nice is a rework of all the small deployables. Basically a single base unit, that you can then fit with different modules to achieve different things. Want it to have a bubble, then fit it with a bubble. Want it to tractor, fit it with a tractor. "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
Foggy Hedgehog Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.02.03 13:28:07 - [186] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Foggy Hedgehog wrote: It will be great, if shuttles and blockade runners will be nullified too Do not give blocade runner nullification. They already warp as fast as intercepters, align out like a frigate and can warp cloaked. Adding nullification to them as well will make them impossible to catch. Not truth, even not close to insta-warp ceptors align time. Anyway, it will be easier to catch such transport rather than almost uncatchable interceptors. They will be catched by big gatecamps with ships orbiting gate @12 (thus preventing them from cloaking) easily, if will not use a scout. Moreover, with agility rigs and inertstabs, their cargohold is not too big.
Farr Arrow Perkone Caldari State 2	Posted - 2017.02.03 13:43:58 - [187] - Quote I DEFINITELY do not like gates being able to be locked down long term without a player presence. I sure hope this type of activity never ever ever becomes part of the Eve universe.
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 223	Posted - 2017.02.03 14:14:09 - [188] - Quote shuttle with covert ops cloak and nullification is good idea +1
Crazy Kitten EVE University Ivy League 19	Posted - 2017.02.03 14:22:20 - [189] - Quote i quite like the idea of bubbles being unowned - no roles needed to deploy them, just the skill. but also, everyone with the appropriate skill can unanchor them. so, a bubbled gate that's unmanned is free loot for those with the skill.
Foggy Hedgehog Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.02.03 14:26:23 - [190] - Quote Farr Arrow wrote: I DEFINITELY do not like gates being able to be locked down long term without a player presence. I sure hope this type of activity never ever ever becomes part of the Eve universe. Can you explain, what prevents you from shooting them "without a player presence"? They shall be more expensive, thats all.

Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.03 14:53:56 - [191] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? No, combat ships mainly involved in interaction with bubbles of any kind, would be those used for player vs player interaction, and those players choose what they are after clear, so there is no reason for letting such ones pick on whenever they fill like having odds or no. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Yes, similar to what I wrote above, players who decide to be involved in other activities, than said pvp, shouldnt be enforced to take a part in it. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Anchorable bubbles should exist as they are, those things are expensive to use and are easy to shoot down, also from logistic point of view they are heavy, so fast ships used in daily activities, can't easy handle with them. But most important to mention here is topic of nullified covert t3 with cyno/covert cynos, two days ago I been camping pipe system so got fresh data, also were checking zkill of those who passed, for two hours of sitting on gates, about 15different nullified covert t3 passed, about 90% of whole traffic, and those ships are unstoppable with hic and few other ships, also most of those t3's used by pvp oriented players, who had few hundred kills for each loss ratio, yet they were hopping to fight with others, had black ops gangs ready (yes had intel about them), but they didnt engage in fight with pvp ships, and here is main issue with t3's, as those risk averse cowards, who have only balls to drop pvp ships at players who decide there gameplay will look differently, made there main ship out of such nullified covert t3's. So sumarizing, only nullified covert T3's require to receive huge change's nothing more out of said above.
Volcan Roubartzan Holesale Holesale Operations 2	Posted - 2017.02.03 23:03:51 - [192] - Quote I find the mechanics of Bubbles and interdiction nullification totally fine. When you are not manning the bubbles, they hardly cause issues. When someone has a nullified ship you need an instant lock and possibly de-cloaking move but it is far from impossible to do. Perhaps a 24 hour activation time is not a bad idea. Keeping bubbles up for more than 24 hours can cause travel issues that don't necessarily contribute to the game but on the other hand, finding someone else's bubble and shooting it or using it for your own means is something people including myself do on occasion.
Garret Sidzaka 506 Irregulars The Volition Cult 12	Posted - 2017.02.04 00:06:36 - [193] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes because this is the only counter to a bunch gate campers, and scouts would be useless without this. nullsec would grind even slower with no one able to move How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Shuttles would be insanely useful if you allowed them the jump fatigue bonus of haulers. blockade runners should be much easier to get because they are only good for noobs. yachts....why not! Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? These are already almost useless, if you are going to make them decay you might as well remove them because they will become a super pointless anchorable. thanks for listening
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1237	Posted - 2017.02.04 00:17:26 - [194] - Quote Module yes. BS class with BS fitting reqs for utility high slot. Intense cap usage to limit activation numbers concurrently. Sunesis gets a role or ship bonus for fitting and slight cap reduction. Module acts as a limited usage interdiction nullification that uses large amounts of cap. Downside to the module is it does NOT stop DIC or HIC bubbles from working as a direct player driven active counter. Bubbles degrade over time. Shields, then armor and then structure goes pop after anywhere between 6-12 hours for smallest to largest. Can be manually repped if one so wishes to increase time on station. Nullification of yachts and other ships are fine minus inties. Only one of the inties should have nullification. Im undecided on which though the point range class or the dps one though I am leaning more to the point range inty should have the nullification. T3s have been nerfed a lot in the last few years and people still scream about them but the drawbacks are enough to keep these nullified. A slight tweak to the align time for the nullified/cloaky sub combo might work best here but isnt a huge deal imo. Another thing to look at is to make DIC/HIC pilots great again by changing what ships can counter direct or indirect bubbles. Aka players atk or afk gameplay. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Jack Reaper Jones ShekelSquad Interhole Revenue Service 0	Posted - 2017.02.04 02:13:45 - [195] - Quote How about you make cloaks have a manual cycle every hour instead of working about permabubbled gates?? BTW make the bubbles have to be reset every 3 hours. wam bam. interdiction nullification is balanced imo. waste of time.
naed21 The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 41	Posted - 2017.02.04 03:44:46 - [196] - Quote I know it's extremely niche and I'm one of only two individuals that use one, but I've had my gas havesting tengu for over 5 years and the nullifier subsystem has allowed me to escape countless ganks and camps within wh space. With that said, huge ehp, warp stabs and nullification is just plain unfair. It will be a said day but I do look forward to retiring this un-catchable isk printing machine that apparently never caught on. (Depsite my best efforts to push it on my corp mates, aka the other individual who has also never been caught). For a bit of context, I like to have slave implants, but getting podded sucks. Thus a nullified gas havester is awesome. Although with citadels, this point has become moot.
E-2C Hawkeye State War Academy Caldari State 706	Posted - 2017.02.04 05:51:07 - [197] - Quote I do not feel any type of LONG TERM AFK game play should be allowed. Anything you have active (ship) (module) (item) in the game should at least require your input once every couple of hours. This should apply to every aspect of the game including bubbles or mining or ratting or hauling or cloaky camping...everything I am for allowing nullification. This allows me the feeling of sticking it to the man when I can go deep into his space and operate by exploring or scouting or setting safe spots off gates or setting siphon units or disrupting ratting or running his anomalies or scanning down his anomaly and waiting for him cloaked or getting his cyno .......possibilities are endless. If your worried about large nullified groups then make nullification disabled in a fleet. Removing nullification would take away a part of the game that grants me personally the greatest satisfaction. Removing it would only make it harder on the little guy to have an impact since one bubble ends your trip. Well I am certain I have stirred the pot enough for the moment. Thanks for requesting the input and allowing the little guy a voice
Carefire Nalaar Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.02.04 07:09:08 - [198] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? This is appears to be something extremely hard to balance from reading the comments and thinking about on my own. 1) I like interceptors as they are. I hear a lot of people complaining about them and how annoying they are. I have been on the receiving end of interceptor gangs. While it is annoying seeing a killmail so easily slip through my fingers, I believe removing the nullification from them would make them pretty **. They wouldn't be 'Intercepting' anything better than a T1 frigate without that nullification. Here's a complete stretch and please disregard because I might have a mental disability... But if you take away their nullification you need to add something else to make them slippery that can be countered still. Perhaps add 2 points of warp stability and make them immune to non-heavy webs(aka the webs on BCs/BSs). This would make them slippery but still catch-able if you really put your mind to it. 2) Modules for every ship could be interesting but I imagine it would be really hard to balance so its not either or OP. 3) I wouldn't mind seeing reworked ships or new classes of ships specifically balanced with nullification in mind. 4) I'm currently a poor so I don't fly TC3s but they seem to be good at everything. Is this good or bad? I don't have an opinion right now, but everyone else does. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? 1) Tech 2 shuttles with nullification could definitely be a thing in my book. 2) I think the transports should have their roles reworked and nullification fit onto one of them. People complain that they would be ALMOST uncatchable, but is that really a big problem? A JF is ALMOST uncatchable too if you aren't an idiot about it. I think having faster and safer means for an individual or a small group to get supplies into/around nullsec would be a great thing. There have been multiple times when I wish I could have safely transported a moderate amount of stuff into Null without waiting for a JF pilot. Luckily I do have access to one, but what about those who may not? This doesn't really take much away from the current way things are done. If anything this creates more content. People will still be idiots and get caught. People who used to use JF services might take the risk and create a nice loot pinata for a gate camp. There have been times where I won't fly for a night or two because I can't get the modules I want for a particular ship that I like to fly. Perchance, maybe I or a small group just want to set out on my/their own somewhere? It is nearly impossible to do since I don't have a JF at my personal disposal. Before you complain about "Wheres the danger and risk?" please stop. People are generally moving stuff with the means to get it blown up. If they can't get it out there safely to ultimately get it blown up, more than likely they aren't even going to try at all. Letting the stuff get to the destination before it blows up tends to lead to content that is more fun. 3) I don't really have an opinion of yachts. I should probably utilize them, but I don't. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist?** They should exist, but should decay and create killmails 100%
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18565	Posted - 2017.02.04 09:10:08 - [199] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: It wasn't long ago. So what changed during this time? Because T3C are not the only hull doctrines to fly in null AFAIK. CCP killed offgrid boosting. The impossible to catch part is still there. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Sure they are, but you must spend few hundred millions to do so, and I assume we are tanking about Tengu here? I don't think you will fly that blinged ship in fleets...and if you can't catch pve ship in ded site with combat recon you just bad. Price is no barrier, never has been. No its not just the tengu and yes they are impossible to catch when they are traveling around. Jeremiah Saken wrote: There must be counter to indirect warp disrupting and nullifier subsystem is that counter. There is, how do you think the other cov ops ships get around? Jeremiah Saken wrote: You may nerf dps and tank ability even more but nullsec bears will still be crying that they can't catch everything. Null shouldn't be safe for people living there and 100% predictable. its 100% predictable anything that has a cov ops cloak and nullification is going to be impossible to catch.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18565	Posted - 2017.02.04 09:14:03 - [200] - Quote Foggy Hedgehog wrote: baltec1 wrote: Foggy Hedgehog wrote: It will be great, if shuttles and blockade runners will be nullified too Do not give blocade runner nullification. They already warp as fast as intercepters, align out like a frigate and can warp cloaked. Adding nullification to them as well will make them impossible to catch. Not truth, even not close to insta-warp ceptors align time. Anyway, it will be easier to catch such transport rather than almost uncatchable interceptors. They will be catched by big gatecamps with ships orbiting gate @12 (thus preventing them from cloaking) easily, if will not use a scout. Moreover, with agility rigs and inertstabs, their cargohold is not too big. Nobody will catch these things, they have a sub 3 second align time while moving.

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.04 10:38:13 - [201] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: There must be counter to indirect warp disrupting and nullifier subsystem is that counter. There is, how do you think the other cov ops ships get around? No, direct counter to bubbles are nullified subsystems. Covops cloaks are counter to instalocking hulls. It's not the same, and having covop cloak only within bubble and under the good gatecamp gave you low chance of passing through. Been there, done that. Null shouldn't be safe of trespassers. ISK is just stupid there. baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Sure they are, but you must spend few hundred millions to do so, and I assume we are tanking about Tengu here? I don't think you will fly that blinged ship in fleets...and if you can't catch pve ship in ded site with combat recon you just bad. Price is no barrier, never has been. No its not just the tengu and yes they are impossible to catch when they are traveling around. Aye you won't balance hull via the price (which is skewed today by overfarmed faction BS), but with modules? It's obvious you'll drop civilian and officers modules from equation, and oversized mods. Rest is coming with the price if I'm willing to pay it I gain the advantage, and that advantage is decressed within huge fleets. You'll just get primared and your few billions T3C will pop in beautifull ball of fire. Problem with devs is that they don't know what the role hull have between classes for example destroyers-cruisers. Good example are T3D. What role have that ships? Better than any frigates and very good compared to cruisers. Same is with T3C. "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.
Corvald Tyrska Valknetra 129	Posted - 2017.02.04 11:07:41 - [202] - Quote Bubbles should exist but there should be a decay and gate rats should treat them as hostile and shoot them.
Ziranda Hakuli Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 162	Posted - 2017.02.04 14:23:39 - [203] - Quote Bubbles..... I feel the bubbles are just fine as they are. they are many options within the game to get around them or to hot drop some corp hiding behind the wall of bubbles. remember that Covert Cyno hot drop. and i Seen the T3 cloaky nullified fitted to do just that. all i know from the stories running about is that PL is a little butt hurt having to face the wall of bubbles 3 times. and from the looks of it the defense was set up. Now if there is a limit of the number of bubbles I do not remember seeing that specificly NAMED within the ToS or the EULA. Was there ever a number laid down for this? If there was a number of bubbles to be permitted on grid then why was it not included as a special note for the description or coded in for the bubbles? I do like the idea of giving them a life span of 48 hours or 92 hours once anchored. This would improve the value of the bubbles on the market.
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 520	Posted - 2017.02.04 17:20:19 - [204] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Afternoon folks, I'm looking to spark some discussion on a topic, to gauge player reactions across a wide variety of play styles. There's been some discussion within the CSM on whether nullification on combat ships is a good or bad thing. This included talking about anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. So, if you can post on those topics here, (or by mail, or on the reddit thread I'll be creating from this, if you think that the eve forums are less than good for such discussions) I'd appreciate it. I've heard some strong feelings on all the sides of the argument, but they tend to be from a fairly limited subset of people, rather than a broader consensus. 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? Thanks (If you dont have a specific thought to add to the matter, throwing a like onto a post which expresses what you think is a good idea. Just to keep things from getting cluttered with 'me too' posts) My thoughts on the matter: Having some nullified combat ships isn't bad, but instead of nullified interceptors I think it would be more interesting to give this ability to cov-ops, recons, black ops and of course T3s. All those ships are meant to be stealthy and some of them are good at combat. Likewise, some non-combat ships, like blockade runners, should get it, but not all of them. Shuttles are so cheap it doesn't make sense except for super-special non-cheap shuttles. Anchorable bubbles are a good thing, I'd just like two changes: -Make all of them larger, so more people will use the small ones -Let them decay after two days, like a mobile depot Otherwise, bubbles are good.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6427	Posted - 2017.02.04 17:34:19 - [205] - Quote Ziranda Hakuli wrote: Bubbles..... I feel the bubbles are just fine as they are. they are many options within the game to get around them or to hot drop some corp hiding behind the wall of bubbles. remember that Covert Cyno hot drop. and i Seen the T3 cloaky nullified fitted to do just that. all i know from the stories running about is that PL is a little butt hurt having to face the wall of bubbles 3 times. and from the looks of it the defense was set up. Now if there is a limit of the number of bubbles I do not remember seeing that specificly NAMED within the ToS or the EULA. Was there ever a number laid down for this? If there was a number of bubbles to be permitted on grid then why was it not included as a special note for the description or coded in for the bubbles? I do like the idea of giving them a life span of 48 hours or 92 hours once anchored. This would improve the value of the bubbles on the market. There isn't a specific number. This is covered by the clause of "don't do stuff to deliberately cause lag". Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Predator Ace Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.02.04 19:12:14 - [206] - Quote Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? -Yes, you should have combat nullified ships, to have a chance to make solo-pvp at null-sec. Cuz, if there will not be nulllified combat ships (like crow, any other interceptors, or t3`s). Alliance who live in null-sec will totally dominate there, wich is not good. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? -Yes you should have a nullified non-combat ships, cuz you will be able to do some stuff solo in null-sec. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? -Yes, they should exist ! Cuz there is only one good way to do some good defens on home system gates (in null-sec). ______________________________________ So, in general, nullified combat and non-combat ships should exist(nullified t`3s and other), cuz if they will not exist, solo-pvp will absolutly die in null-sec, and big alliances will dominate in null sec, cuz solo players cant actually do anything in null without nullified ships.
TheDoctorUK BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team 7	Posted - 2017.02.04 19:22:40 - [207] - Quote Here what I would like to see. Make them Generate Killmails. when killed. allow corp unanchor with or without roles, (if corp anchored it needs roles, but if player anchored anyone in corp can unachor.. Scalable lifespan on bubbles, 36h on small, 72 on medium and 104 on large (tech 2 get an extra 33% time bonus) Allow them to be stolen, 3 rounds of hacking with data analyser and 10 min unanchor, or 5-15 min entosis) corp then alerted via notification with location.
Zane Chakaid Aust Minerals Pty Ltd 0	Posted - 2017.02.04 20:35:27 - [208] - Quote I don't know if the mechanics should be changed or how, but I would like to see the current dynamic between knowledge and work with survivability preserved. For example, if you take the time to set up and use gate tacs and unaligned safes, you'll dramatically increase your ability to move around safely. Warping gate to gate, on the other hand, increases your chances of landing yourself in a bad situation. Thus, it seems to me that knowledge, work, and patience increases survivability, while ignorance, laziness, and impatience decreases it. No matter how these mechanics are changed, I would like to see that principle preserved as much as possible.
Rilly Dagons The Scope Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.04 23:37:09 - [209] - Quote Combat ships I don't think there is anything particularly problematic about the current nullification of combat ships. Although I can see valid arguments for Interceptors being split into two more defined roles one being nullified the other not. T3 cruisers I think the main problem here is not the nullification/covert ops itself but the ability to change subsystems in open space either by depot or ship maintenance fitting. Subsystem changes should be limited to docked locations or pos, with the looser restrictions on anchoring and general increase in availability of citadel type structures this is not as limiting as it used to be. For the non combat ships Shuttle has a valid place as a nullified ship but it needs to be a tech II variant to distinguish if from the basic model that every rookie flies when they first get into space, thus keeping the cheap and basic nature of the shuttle for 'safe' space while giving the option for a more advanced version for more dangerous areas. Blockade runner doesn't need nullification it's cloaking and speed provide adequate mechanisms to counter bubbles, and avoid camps depending on pilots skill/luck. I'd be more inclined to put nullification on the DST increasing it's ability to move through space but still keeping it's basic vulnerability to manned gate camps. Bubbles They do need to have a limited function time but I don't necessarily think they need to be one use structures more along the lines of a pos tower where it only generates a bubble while fuelled otherwise it just sits and does nothing possibly having the shield layer tied to the bubble effect so that when it is offline only the more vulnerable armour and hull are active making them a lot easier to destroy. Taking an Idea I saw earlier in the thread it would be interesting to have a small citadel structure class that has a single highslot and a fuel bay with no docking or tethering but simply providing a basic structure that can be fitted for multiple purposes. The main difference between this and the single use deployables being the option for it to be a corp rather than a personal asset.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18565	Posted - 2017.02.05 01:18:14 - [210] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: No, direct counter to bubbles are nullified subsystems. Covops cloaks are counter to instalocking hulls. It's not the same, and having covop cloak only within bubble and under the good gatecamp gave you low chance of passing through. Been there, done that. Null shouldn't be safe of trespassers. ISK is just stupid there. And trespassers should not have impossible to stop ships. Cov ops alone is powerful for cruisers, adding nullification makes it overpowered. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Problem with devs is that they don't know what the role hull have between classes for example destroyers-cruisers. Good example are T3D. What role have that ships? Better than any frigates and very good compared to cruisers. Same is with T3C. All the T3 ships are horribly overpowered.

Aaril Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 41	Posted - 2017.02.05 01:57:17 - [211] - Quote One of the great aspects of this game, even if it is sometimes frustrating, is there is a counter to pretty much all game mechanics. I am fine with interdiction the way it is. I would probably be fine with BR getting interdiction as well.
Ajem Hinken Quaice Industries 22	Posted - 2017.02.05 02:36:18 - [212] - Quote I'd think that if the bubbles were to decay, it'd have to be based upon capacitor. The bubbles slowly lose cap until their cap goes empty and the bubble turns off. Then they slowly fall apart. (Call it a lack of an internal stability field or whatever) Then, if you're there to guard it, you can just lengthen the lifespan of them by transmitting cap to them. I don't have extensive experience with these, but after a little research those are my thoughts.
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 5	Posted - 2017.02.05 04:42:36 - [213] - Quote Let me put my 2 cents here. Nullified T3C's without the Covops can be considered.. too dangerous, given the other availible configuration options. But in the usual configuration of nullified/covops it's used for explo/scouting, and as that role it's perfectly fine, IF maybe it could use a decrease in maneuvrability to still be succeptible to decloaking in a timely fashion. But really, there are ways of doing explo content that can only be done with a T3C, and also the modularity of it is great to propagate a unique nomad playstyle seeing as you could carry an extra fit. Also good content. Ceptors? I they should keep it. They're the prime tackle for carriers deep in bubblefucked territory and should remain so. Given the discussion is more global, adding nullification to shuttles and removing it from ceptors is a great compromise as LONG as bubbles get a short timer, under 24h. Something that upkeeping would make it a huge headache. Yachts... depends only if CCP plan on making them more widely availible. Currently in wormhole space they're used as the ultimate DANGERZONE rollers, and almost impossible to catch, but if changes are made to T3Cs and ceptors, i guess a limited edition ship that can still cover the role of a very hard to catch MIllenium Falcon would still be fine.
Ziranda Hakuli Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 162	Posted - 2017.02.05 08:37:49 - [214] - Quote Pandemic Legion is crying from what I am seeing and gathering from various folks. You got an Industrial Corp who has little PVP experience staring down the perverbial barrel of a 45 with PL holding it. Large alliance that has many PVP pilots looking for cheap easy kills and expect those in smaller groups to roll over and bare their throats so that PL and its people would be able to enjoy easy kills. Now that a Industrial corp stood up with a defense trying to protect its assets and be able to produce ships and what nots for the alliance they are part of barely able to stand up to capital fleet. MOA & Brave 258 Ferox and a few battleships facing off 128 PL, PH, Circle of Two Battle ship dreads, carriers, and faxes. Pretty obvious the odds were not in favor of the home team but instead got beaten. All that PL and company wanted was to kill the Sotiyo and wanted it to be easy. Instead the home team made it challenging. Resulting with an unkown side affect of older less power PCs lagging. I showed up in the system to watch and wondered why people were crying about the lag since i had none. If the bubbles are hit with a "re-Balance" I hope that all combat ships lose their interdiction nullify ability except for the interceptors and that ALL non combative ships gain the immunity to warp nullification. These bubbles have been around for a decade and a few years. deal with it and get a MWD.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18566	Posted - 2017.02.05 11:37:55 - [215] - Quote Ziranda Hakuli wrote: Pandemic Legion is crying from what I am seeing and gathering from various folks. You got an Industrial Corp who has little PVP experience staring down the perverbial barrel of a 45 with PL holding it. Large alliance that has many PVP pilots looking for cheap easy kills and expect those in smaller groups to roll over and bare their throats so that PL and its people would be able to enjoy easy kills. Now that a Industrial corp stood up with a defense trying to protect its assets and be able to produce ships and what nots for the alliance they are part of barely able to stand up to capital fleet. MOA & Brave 258 Ferox and a few battleships facing off 128 PL, PH, Circle of Two Battle ship dreads, carriers, and faxes. Pretty obvious the odds were not in favor of the home team but instead got beaten. All that PL and company wanted was to kill the Sotiyo and wanted it to be easy. Instead the home team made it challenging. Resulting with an unkown side affect of older less power PCs lagging. I showed up in the system to watch and wondered why people were crying about the lag since i had none. If the bubbles are hit with a "re-Balance" I hope that all combat ships lose their interdiction nullify ability except for the interceptors and that ALL non combative ships gain the immunity to warp nullification. These bubbles have been around for a decade and a few years. deal with it and get a MWD. Its not PL wanting to nerf bubbles, I only just a few pages ago said bubbles are fine but should probably generate a killmail.
Ziranda Hakuli Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 162	Posted - 2017.02.05 11:43:49 - [216] - Quote i got no issuie if they give a kill mail. Would be awesome if they did
Elithiel en Gravonere KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2017.02.05 15:06:39 - [217] - Quote As someone who uses all these ships to move about enemy space very often, (all interdictor nullified ships), there is actually a counter for each of these ships although it isn't a cloaky sabre. For interceptors its the smart bombing battleship, for blockade runners (which aren't nullified) it actually is the bubble that'll catch them. For T3C's its the slower align time (being a cruiser), for Yachts, its the same issue. All these ships currently have an in game counter. As someone on the other side of the world (Australia) that has to deal with the very slow communication with your servers in London, these ships are pretty much the only thing that would save me from your insta locking svipuls. It still very much is the case, even with that having been nerfed. Someone in London can always lock you faster in any other ship and you'll just die. During the Casino war I'd see gates bubbled to high heaven. I'd see citadels sit just under a warp path with hundreds of large bubbles blocking the path. If you dared warp along that line in anything other than an interceptor or other nullified ship, you'd be dead as the citadel guns would be in range and blap you dead. Bubble camps do catch ships everyday. pipe bombs do as well. cloaky hunters will sit in a bubble waiting for stragglers. So I'm not in favour of changing the status quo. About the only thing I would change, is the Blockade runner, its largely a lowsec used ship. About the only time i use it in nullsec fully is when I get shot via a black ops battleship 10 systems ahead or something. It would be nice if it could get some kind of nullified option that is traded off for breaking cloak when activated. Just a thought I had to see more use of this ship in nullsec. As for bubbles, I don't think they should decay over time, I think they should have their EHP halved though, so that they're much easier to pop. Give them no more than 10000 EHP for the biggest ones (not 30K like now).
Predator Ace Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2017.02.05 18:11:46 - [218] - Quote So, excuse me, but in general, its stupid idea to remove nullified ships. Because if you do this, you kill a solo players in null sec(and solo live in null sec at all). And you give a huge advantage to alliances who live in null sec, they will camp and bubble everything, and you even will not have a chance to go throught those camps, because without nullified ship, you will die in the first camp in null sec. Its actually seems like PL`s pay you to prove thing that you should delete nullified ships from the game, cuz PL`s feel pain when some neutral nullified ship are goes throught theirs bubbled camps. ______________ About bubbles, i think bubbles are good now, dont see the reason to change bubble mechanics. Bubbles should be in null sec, because null sec its not a low sec.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18566	Posted - 2017.02.05 19:19:27 - [219] - Quote Predator Ace wrote: So, excuse me, but in general, its stupid idea to remove nullified ships. Because if you do this, you kill a solo players in null sec(and solo live in null sec at all). And you give a huge advantage to alliances who live in null sec, they will camp and bubble everything, and you even will not have a chance to go throught those camps, because without nullified ship, you will die in the first camp in null sec. Its actually seems like PL`s pay you to prove thing that you should delete nullified ships from the game, cuz PL`s feel pain when some neutral nullified ship are goes throught theirs bubbled camps. Everyone managed just fine before cloaky nullified ships were added. Frankly, its more likely its our cloaky nullified ships running around in your space so any nerf hits us just as hard.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 641	Posted - 2017.02.05 20:55:52 - [220] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Everyone managed just fine before cloaky nullified ships were added... and now we got mobile disruptors bloting out the gates. "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 18567	Posted - 2017.02.05 22:18:59 - [221] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: and now we got mobile disruptors bloting out the gates. We did before.
Sboycole Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.02.06 14:18:31 - [222] - Quote I've run both nullified, and non nullified ships through null, yes it's a pain on occasion, but at the same time, decaying bubbles would be nice, as would an anchor distance restriction from other bubbles, if bubbles could be anchored far enough that a warp stab, for example, could be used as a counter for a bubble, I'd say nullified ships would lose their benefit in the first place, at least for unmanned bubbles. So argument could be made both ways, personally i'd say either a 12 hour decay or anchor distance restrictions so they couldn't overlap would be a sufficient reason to be able to argue for the removal of nullified ships.
Shinji Katsuragi Y.G.G.D.R.A.S.I.L. Branch Everyb0dy Knows 1	Posted - 2017.02.06 15:46:01 - [223] - Quote Nullified T3/bubble relationship is ok currently and should be left as is. Adding nullification to non-combat ships like shuttles, yachts, blockade runners would be great, though(shuttles and blockade runners especially. Blockade runners especially, after all, they ARE named blockade runners, not blockade sitters). Bubbles do need to be nerfed on ehp and have distance restrictions, same as structures.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3025	Posted - 2017.02.06 19:17:33 - [224] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes to an extent. Bubble-immune 'Ceptors make sense because of their role and because of their generally limited combat capability. I don't have a problem with T3s having a nullification subsystem, but I do feel that fitting a nullification subsystem should have more of a detrimental impact on a T3's combat ability. I would also be in favor of preventing T3s from mounting both a nullification subsystem and a CovOps subsystem at the same time: CovOps cloak or bubble-immunity, not both at the same time. No other combat ships should be bubble-immune unless new ships are released with very specialized roles where it makes sense. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Again, yes to an extent. T1 bubble-immune shuttles I think would be overkill, but maybe a T2 shuttle variant that is bubble-immune could have a role. Bubble-immunity makes sense for Blockade Runners from a role standpoint, but I feel like that may be overpowered with their CovOps cloak. (See my above comments about T3s.) The Yachts are relatively rare, limited editions ships with no significant combat or hauling ability, so I say they're fine as-is. Again, I don't think any other non-combat ships should be bubble-immune unless new ships are released with very specialized roles where it makes sense. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? I'm all in favor of them existing, but I do feel that the general shift away from automatic to manned defenses (i.e. POSes vs Citadels) could call for a change. A straight-up decay timer like other anchorables seems a bit harsh, so maybe give them a limited fuel requirement so that if someone wanted to anchor a bubble permanently they would have to refuel it periodically. I think they're fine as they are though and would only favor this change as part of a shifting defensive paradigm. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18572	Posted - 2017.02.07 10:46:36 - [225] - Quote Shinji Katsuragi wrote: Blockade runners especially, after all, they ARE named blockade runners, not blockade sitters). Again I point out that if you do this it would be impossible to catch a blockade runner.
FeMalogalotalotim Renegade Stars The Eclipse. 3	Posted - 2017.02.07 13:27:18 - [226] - Quote Quote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes ofcourse. If the T3 cruiser have skill points penalty on death then it should have more bonuses and options. Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Keep as is now. No need to change. Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Add cargo into the bubbles deppend on the size. Then put strontium (or something else inside) which gives "fuel" to the bubble. 1 Unit "stront/whatever" = 1h time. Size of bubbles means more space, i.e. more time anchored. And if u dont put more fuel then it stop working.
Tzun Solette University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.07 15:15:41 - [227] - Quote As someone who recently moved from lowsec to nullsec I think that there is a real problem with bubbles, gatecamps and players exploiting current mechanics to get lots of easy kills. Last few times I lost my ships it was to gatecamps where I was tackled before my game even loaded 100 bubbles the campers placed there to cause lag and exploit the mechanics. Also the gatecampers use ships that lock you in a second or two and spam the area with drones to exploit the cloak mechanics and decloak everythink. Other than that, the big problem are gatecamps like Tama where 10 campers spam some targeting scripts/macros that insta lock anyone warping through that gate before he can even notice em and warp out. I'd suggest: - Making warp bubbles decay over 24 hours. Therefore they need to be replaced every now and then. Hopefully they will become more costly and would prevent that massive lag. - Making warp bubbles unstackable on each other. They should be placed at least 5km apart from any other bubble and structures and warp gates. - Adding a minimum targeting timer of around 3 seconds so campers can still catch careless players but people in fast ships, who pay attention won't die to some lag on their end or gatecampers abusing insta lock mechanics leaving their victims helpless no matter what they fly or how much attention they pay. - Making that only other ships withing 2km decloak your ship - so drones/cans won't be spammed and exploited and won't be causing lag. - Adding more modules that make you immune to warp bubbles that can fit on any ship. Also many times I lost a ship it was due to players waiting in a warp bubble in the exact position where I'll end my warp. Then they insta decloak me and destroy my ship before I can even notice that the warp is over and the gate is still 400km away. That forces people to make so called PINGS - savespots near some gates that are far away from other celestials, so they don't warp in a straight line between two gates. That's a totally redundant mechanics - in order to make some PINGS you need to spend a lot of time and spam warp/stop till your capacitor is empty and repeat till you are near that gate. It just takes time and punishes players who can't be playing 24/7 due to real life obligations. Therefore I suggest: - Add an option to warp more than 100km away from the target. - Add an option to not warp in a straight line between your position and the target but curve at the end and approach the gate from some other angle/side- just like you warp from gate to PING and then warp again to a 2nd gate, but without wasting players time and annoying them. tl;dr Current mechanics are exploited by gatecampers who can't really pvp but abuse to get some easy killmails on more casual players who can't play eve 24/7. There is no skill involved and no risk on the gatecampers end. That needs to be changed or Eve will lose even more players. PS. Posting from an alt so my views/opnion won't be causing ingame consequences from other players (yes I'm scared).
Old Pervert Perkone Caldari State 30	Posted - 2017.02.07 16:05:23 - [228] - 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 would solve 99% of the bubble cancer in Eve. I would say a 15 minute timer from the time you're more than twice the bubble range away from it. That way you can anchor it and use it to create an ambush, but it won't stick around forever and it won't give the rest of us cancer every time we jump through a bubblefucked system.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 643	Posted - 2017.02.08 08:08:05 - [229] - Quote Timer for anchorable bubbles should be 6 hours maximum. I saw few days timers propositions, which won't solve anything. "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 18577	Posted - 2017.02.08 09:49:08 - [230] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Timer for anchorable bubbles should be 6 hours maximum. I saw few days timers propositions, which won't solve anything. I'm against putting a timer on for the selfish reason of I like to steal these bubbles and use them myself. Honestly an unmanned bubble is not hard to kill off and simply having it provide a killmail will be all the incentive required for people to blap it.

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 643	Posted - 2017.02.08 10:10:10 - [231] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I'm against putting a timer on for the selfish reason of I like to steal these bubbles and use them myself. Hackable bubbles would be fun, but timer is a must, more active gameplay we need. Also would be good for the structures market. baltec1 wrote: ...simply having it provide a killmail will be all the incentive required for people to blap it. this would be incentive to shoot mobile structure? People are strange sometimes when it comes to killmails. "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.
FeyPrince Dead Monkey Holding 0	Posted - 2017.02.08 10:13:02 - [232] - Quote Ready for some really radical Ideas? In a world of Interdiction, there needs to be nullification, otherwise there will be no counter to them. The two are intertwined, elsewise you'll end up with only having giant bubble laden slugfests in null. or citadels with a hundred bubbles around them keeping anyone from attacking during repair timers etc. If there is no way to counter it, people will find every way to abuse it. That being said, I'd say the arguments for and against nullification and interdiction boil down to a frustration. Either you're frustrated you can't kill them, or you're frustrated they can kill you. it seems most people argue against the side they aren't on. Here's some proposals: Combat ships: Interceptors- I'd agree with the idea of a tackle inty that is nullified and a combat inty that isn't but stronger in combat. Yes there should be travel ceptors, you can smartbomb them if you really don't like them, or maybe a hictor can script to stop nullfied warping around him. I think that's a good idea. T3s- Not really my area of expertise but I feel the ships are sluggish enough when taking gates that unless covops fit you could take them there, if covops fit they serve a great role of hunters and killers or scouts or hackers Hictors/Dictors- These ships are the bane of many ships in the game, adding interceptors and nullified T3s to this list with specialized equipment may be a good or bad thing, but its a good idea Non-Combat I really don't think it needs to be on many noncombat ships in fact I'd like specifically to talk about the Blockade Runner. I think the ship should double down on its blockade running abilities (to not be completely overshadowed by Jump Freighters) but i don't think that should be done with nullification, instead I propose allowing BRs to run prop mods (or maybe just afterburners) while cloaked as a way to outrun the blockades. I think it'd make for a more engaging gameplay but still advantage the BR Anchorables This is what I'd really like to talk about here. Many people are complaining about anchorable bubbles and want them to "decay." I'd like to see an awesome new system of anchorable bubbles rather than "I hate you guys who just put up blockades you make it not easy for free miner kills." I think blockading should be more meaningful and purposeful and also more intractable between both attackers and defenders. I propose 3 different types of deployables to replace the current ones which seem to be more skill and price point locked than anything (why use anything other than smalls and Large tech IIs?) Based on what i see the common uses for deployable bubbles to be: -Small deployable for gate camps. Works very much like current Bubbles small medium bubbles, but has a one hour expiration timer (visible to the deployer so he knows when to save it) Designed to be dropped by a group of destoyers or campers to form gate/pipe camps (could come in Tech II flavors that stop cloaks or nullification if need be) -Large Blockade Units. These would be in place on the current uses for large T2 bubbles namely blockading away systems. Instead of bubblefucking a gate with 5-40 bubbles, you could deploy one of these on a gate (it only anchors when within so much of a gate and attaches to it) and it provides a large bubble around the gate (maybe 40-100km of the gate). Once deployed it takes an takes an anchor time then can be turned on to blockade away a gate. This object doesn't decay but instead consumes some sort of fuel (probably an ice product, LO or Stront or Heavy water or something) to stay up and running with its bubble. The defender needs to fuel it to keep it up and running, and the owners can turn it on and off at will (probably a 10 min timer between switching it again). For attackers you can ingore and burn through it, or you can shoot it. If you deal damage to it (probably about the same HP as a single Large bubble) you knock down its shields, the bubble turns off and the Blockade unit enters a reinforcement period for about 10-15 mins. The attackers than then continue on or they can wait around/come back and the Blockade unit starts a repair cycle (which could be sped up by entosising it or repping it or something) in which the attackers can shoot it again to destroy it permanently. The point of this being you can establish and take away system control through blockades (you can even blockade others into their own systems if you want) -There should probably be a medium sized deployable to anchor on structures/undocks if there is still a need for the hellcamping tactic to be accomplishable in eve in an offensive role. I think this can be solved with a smaller tempory version of the blockade unit which can be attached to enemy structures. But citadels have too many teeth and they'd just kill it unless it was not targetable by citadels. Food for thought at least All that being said I think alot of the real problem cases with the mechanics are mostly edge case scenarios and instead of putting the blame on what can be a fun and engaging game of using interdiction (and conversely countering with the limited selection of nullified ships) creatively and purposefully. Thanks for listening to my ideas, and my thoughts Tl:dr Most of the mechanics are fine but some QoL and elimination of edge cases should happen. Also I have an idea for a cool new deployable to replace hellbubbled gates with an engaging gameplay for both sides
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18577	Posted - 2017.02.08 16:42:24 - [233] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: this would be incentive to shoot mobile structure? People are strange sometimes when it comes to killmails. You will be amazed at how often people track down tractor units to whack em.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3026	Posted - 2017.02.08 17:31:48 - [234] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: this would be incentive to shoot mobile structure? People are strange sometimes when it comes to killmails. You will be amazed at how often people track down tractor units to whack em. Confirming that this is a thing. I do it more for the pissed-off reactions, suspect-baiting, and occasional loot drops than the killmails, but the killmails certainly don't hurt my motivation. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 731	Posted - 2017.02.11 06:05:32 - [235] - Quote In response to the 3 suggested questions by Steve: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes. This is a space game, and makes sense to have both ships that can interdict and YOLO McSwaggins to interdiction. There should also be a wider degree of interdiction. A theoretical example could be a capital interdictor, similar to the interdictor class star destroyer, with an siege mode and scramming warp bubble with a smaller range or a huge disrupting warp bubble or some such. Or you could be boring and make another script for the HIC. insert arguments about gatecamping here Obviously there is a fair bit of work that would need to be done on balance, but it diversifying capitals would certainly be a welcome addition(acknowledging that we just got the fax models not so long ago). How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Yes. I'm all for a more diverse Eve. Not just specifically about interdiction either. Racing corvettes man. Fancy Yachts to sit on the Jita undock and laugh at the poors in Gnosisisisis. Why? Because why not! But yes, T2 shuttles sharing either the inty nullification or the blockade runner tanking/warp core bonuses? Sign me up. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? They should exist. They should require some fuel though. Whether it be stront or generic isotopes or chewing on tritanium. If they run out of fuel, then they should start decaying. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
GROUND XERO Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem. 13	Posted - 2017.02.13 08:38:01 - [236] - Quote We don-¦t need extra nullified ships!!! So pls do not even think about bringing more in!!! T3 should get a greater punishment for using the subsystem! Fuel for bubbles might be an idea but than again ...NO! .... they are working fine like they are so why changing em? Bubble hell gates are in game for a long time now and before there wasen-¦t even one ship immune to the effect! Yacht is a pain in the ass! I set Fozzi -10 when this came into game ....(from -5 for inties!)... NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
Liafcipe9000 ShekelSquad Interhole Revenue Service 37129	Posted - 2017.02.14 07:41:15 - [237] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? strategic cruisers already are. I find it hard to believe that there is any point to giving that feature to any other ships. Steve Ronuken wrote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? if you want to see people stop using ceptors as shuttles, sure. Steve Ronuken wrote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? as a wormhole dweller, I have seen way too many bubble deployables left out in the middle of nowhere, littering many systems. they have to be cleaned up at some point.
Dmitrij Zhukov Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.17 11:30:20 - [238] - Quote I agree with Predator Ace. On my think its very bad idea to delete nullified coops ships. I am (probably same like Predator Ace), are solo null-sec player, and t3 covert nullified tengu give me a chance to live in null-sec in solo, without any corporation. If you delete those ships, you will kill solo life in null-sec.
Alaric Arminius Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.17 11:36:39 - [239] - Quote Hi all! Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? Yes ! Why ? Because i am personnel now learning skills for t3 nullified tengu, and as soon as i learn i will be able to do DED sites in null sec in solo. Without those t3 covops nullified ship, it will be impossible for me. How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? Yes, there is also should be covops nullified ships to do some logistic stuff in null-sec. Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? yes thay should exist. I am not sure if thay should have decay, but for now bubbles seems ok, probably old players think different about bubbles, but on my opinion bubbles and t3 nullified covops ships are good now. And also t3 covops nullified ships its only one possible way to avoide bubbles and gate camps in null-sec, on my think.
Wasted Noon Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.18 01:08:41 - [240] - Quote I see problem not with some ships being immune to bubbles and related, but rather insta align ships. Struggling against server tick, and not against another player is broken game play. . In addition, its time to end the align -cloak-microwarp trick.

Roamer Jakuard Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.02.18 13:44:36 - [241] - Quote I'm relatively new (been playing a little over a year), but wanted to add to this particular discussion. Regarding Anchored Bubbles: It seems to me that the problem is with having too many such bubbles. So I think that one bubble should last until destroyed. But with every additional bubble added within a certain distance, they interfere with each other and gradually damage each other. This would mean that the more bubbles there are in proximity to each other, the less time they would last. You could even have a cool effect like lightning strikes between bubble generators to represent this (a lightning storm in space). Just my two cents. Regarding Interdiction Nullified: I am biased towards interceptors keeping this ability, especially since it's really the only thing that makes them worthwhile compared to faction and pirate frigates. "Insta-warping" interceptors are not uncatchable. Having looked through killmails, I've seen them die to both smart bombing battleships and fast locking gate camps. Given the role of interceptors, it seems right to me if you need a dedicated battle ship or another boosted interceptor to deal with them. Looking at camps in Doril for instance, they seem to have a camp on the gate to lowest to catch the bigger/slower stuff, and battleships on at least the other main travel gate to kill the little fast stuff. Games are always going to have limitations due to basic mechanics of servers. So for those who say that it is unfair that interceptors can have a good chance to escape a gate camp in null, I can only point out that they aren't doing anything that almost any frigate can do in lowsec. Interceptors (even the combat ones) are hardly powerful ships. And if fielded in numbers, there are easy answers to them. Also, I live in Australia, so suffer from lag. It's nice to have a ship that doesn't penalise me for where I live. So don't talk to me about what's fair. I can't comment on T3 cruisers, since I have no experience with them.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18645	Posted - 2017.02.18 17:42:19 - [242] - Quote Dmitrij Zhukov wrote: I agree with Predator Ace. On my think its very bad idea to delete nullified coops ships. I am (probably same like Predator Ace), are solo null-sec player, and t3 covert nullified tengu give me a chance to live in null-sec in solo, without any corporation. If you delete those ships, you will kill solo life in null-sec. Rubbish, you will get along just fine. The only change would be that it would be possible to catch you but still hard to do.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2897	Posted - 2017.02.22 10:48:23 - [243] - Quote I lot of people especially big alliance people take a pop at Strategic Cruisers having the ability to be covert cloaked and nullified, however removing this from a lship which is gimped when fitted this way and enables smaller groups or players to move things around without being an easy kill is really important to those small groups and solo players. At the moment the bigger alliances just drop Citadels, cyno to them and move a slight amount and they are safe, this means that they have a really easy and safe way to move capitals, I happen to agree with this, but the smaller groups cannot put up citadels all over the map to create the same logistics networks, so they use T3C's as scouts for BR's and take small expensive items in cloaked and nullified T3C's. and often via WH space. Removing this ability to T3C's would be yet another massive kick in the teeth to smaller groups and further entrench the big alliances. I sometimes see T3C's getting caught by gate camps, to be blunt the more people you have on the gate camp the more chance you have, I have had some very close calls jumping into gate camps with a lot of people. As far as I am concerned the ideas on bubbles are great, the T3C's are working quite now in terms of balance and this cloaked and nullified ability is something that is already balanced by having gimped fittings in return. EDIT: And let me be blunt, the reason you don't see bubble gate camps all over the place is because there is a counter in terms of interceptors and T3C's, if I was whispering in CCP's ear I would make Blockade Runners nullified too. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein
Predator Ace Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 1	Posted - 2017.02.22 11:17:00 - [244] - Quote Dracvlad, I agree with you. All this situation looks like big nullsec alliances try to prove that covops nullified t3s and other nullified ships should be removed from the game. Because nullified covops ships are pain in ass for big nullsec aliances, and thay actually feel pain when small t3 groups of players or solo players go throught their space, and for example PL`s cant catch those nullified ships. So big nullsec alliances think like "Hey, why dont to implement someone to CSM, or implement idea, to remove thise nullified ships from the game ? No-nullified ships --> no pain for big nullsec alliances ---> big alliances absolutly dominate in nullsec---> solo life/small groups of players life die in null sec" Also, yes, i think blockade runners need to be nullified.
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 6	Posted - 2017.02.23 11:45:26 - [245] - Quote Oh yeah bubbles works great.... BuBBles, BubblEs everywhere more bubbles!
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 13	Posted - 2017.02.24 11:05:44 - [246] - Quote Predator Ace wrote: Dracvlad, I agree with you.(...) Also, yes, i think blockade runners need to be nullified. Love your idea!
ImYourMom Retribution Holdings Corp Retribution. 120	Posted - 2017.02.24 12:17:15 - [247] - Quote they should be removed full stop, drag bubbles are stupid, you want to camp use a interdictor ship, simple
Aka Evil Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 02:39:58 - [248] - Quote The number 1 reason i see that EvE has continued to be a top notch game for ALL playstyles across the gamer universe, is this... for every action there is a equal and possible counter measure. that being said, nullification currently lacks a counter, and so do un-manned bubbles (if you eliminated nullified incterceptors... which needs to happen). For unmanned bubbles, going to a timer seems to be the obvious fit. T3 cruisers with nullification is not horrible, insta lock, dead. For nullified interceptors , currently, there is little to nothing you can do short of setting up your computer with gold lined connections outside the building where ccp's servers are so you can get the perfect tick timer... much like some crooks on wallstreet and jita try make .001 isk on the fractions of information exchange rates. Interceptors are BROKEN. PERIOD. there needs to be a counter. be it a script in a heavy dictor buble or whatever. . having a ship impossible to catch unless you have near perfect internet connection on a good day, while its laggy as hell for this guy running around un-catchable needs a counter, simple as that. make bubbles timers, but make insta warp frigates lockable and killable ... its what 1-2 month training for an interceptor. should be simple skill chain to catch them, but something not common, and dedicated to catching them. for anyone that says that breaks the game, and then i cant tackle things... you arent trying hard enough or skilled enough... i have ran through bubbles in blockade runners that should have died to 20 man gate camps , only to set-up in their territory more times than i have ever been caught doing it.. Easy "i win" buttons, do not become the eve i have come to respect over the years.
Aka Evil Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 02:43:42 - [249] - Quote almost forgot. (drops mic)
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 668	Posted - 2017.02.28 08:06:02 - [250] - Quote Aka Evil wrote: that being said, nullification currently lacks a counter, and so do un-manned bubbles Nullification is a counter to bubbles, no bubbles no nullification needed. What do you want to do? Counter to a counter, some sort of bubblification inception? "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.

Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 40	Posted - 2017.02.28 11:13:29 - [251] - Quote Damn this thread is so funny; Almost all Pandemic, Goons and all other related to them guys (gangers etc) are AGAINST a timers on anchored bubbles and against nullification of that bubbles; Others (most of them) not related to that group (not gangers etc) Agree that bubbles should decay and there should be even more few nullification ships; Im wonder what is the point of Pandemic, Goons and Gangers hmmm - not to mention some guy who were speaking about "align time" cause he can't instalock and pop a small agile ship anymore :( that is sad; So two groups: Gangers who LIVES and ENJOY the game when they can shoot targets sitting at gates in blobs in high/null/low sec shooting stuff which can't run away beeing insta popped; And 2nd group which is sick about being popped when they trying to enjoy the game and stand no chance cause of the mechanic which been many times changed to a favor of the 1st group :) DAMN BRING ME MOAR POPCORN! :)
Althalus Stenory Flying Blacksmiths 110	Posted - 2017.02.28 11:24:29 - [252] - Quote Why not a module (low slot for example) allowing some class of ship to be "nullified" (most likely, those who already are). This module would have combat penalties (can't online turrets, less dps or whatever) without removing travel capabilities of the ships. This way people using inties etc for travel will still be able to do so, but not for pvp anymore (unless refit, which means they'll lose their nullification). Moreover, no nullification on HIC bubble, maybe on dictors bubble too, but still on anchorable bubbles EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 41	Posted - 2017.02.28 11:32:22 - [253] - Quote Althalus Stenory wrote: Why not a module (low slot for example) allowing some class of ship to be "nullified" (most likely, those who already are). This module would have combat penalties (can't online turrets, less dps or whatever) without removing travel capabilities of the ships. This way people using inties etc for travel will still be able to do so, but not for pvp anymore (unless refit, which means they'll lose their nullification). Moreover, no nullification on HIC bubble, maybe on dictors bubble too, but still on anchorable bubbles Havy you ever seen a PVP cloaky T3 which engage anything above frigate? alone? solo?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 12:43:04 - [254] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Aka Evil wrote: that being said, nullification currently lacks a counter, and so do un-manned bubbles Nullification is a counter to bubbles, no bubbles no nullification needed. What do you want to do? Counter to a counter, some sort of bubblification inception? Nullification is countered by standard points on ships. The problem comes when you have nullification combined with a cov ops cloak.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 12:48:12 - [255] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: Havy you ever seen a PVP cloaky T3 which engage anything above frigate? alone? solo? Yes. Nullified cloaky loki is one hell of a ship for raiding the enemy ratting fields.
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 41	Posted - 2017.02.28 13:21:07 - [256] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: Havy you ever seen a PVP cloaky T3 which engage anything above frigate? alone? solo? Yes. Nullified cloaky loki is one hell of a ship for raiding the enemy ratting fields. Really you are talking about PVP vs PVE fitted ship? Would u dare to "touch" anything above frigate if it's pure pvp fitted?
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 41	Posted - 2017.02.28 13:22:03 - [257] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Aka Evil wrote: that being said, nullification currently lacks a counter, and so do un-manned bubbles Nullification is a counter to bubbles, no bubbles no nullification needed. What do you want to do? Counter to a counter, some sort of bubblification inception? Nullification is countered by standard points on ships. The problem comes when you have nullification combined with a cov ops cloak. No problem at all; Thats why u have to pay half a B for a ship to be able to do that kind of job; Your penalty are agility and dps;
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 13:49:02 - [258] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: No problem at all; Thats why u have to pay half a B for a ship to be able to do that kind of job; Your penalty are agility and dps; Price means very little and you are not catching something that has both nullification and a cov ops cloak.
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 41	Posted - 2017.02.28 13:57:54 - [259] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: No problem at all; Thats why u have to pay half a B for a ship to be able to do that kind of job; Your penalty are agility and dps; Price means very little and you are not catching something that has both nullification and a cov ops cloak. You mean that you can't catch it? Well at least you can try with a fast tackler to decloak, bump or whatever - You have like 3-5 s to do it before it warp out; Null/Cloaky T3 is not that fast;
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18712	Posted - 2017.02.28 14:22:09 - [260] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: You mean that you can't catch it? Well at least you can try with a fast tackler to decloak, bump or whatever - You have like 3-5 s to do it before it warp out; Null/Cloaky T3 is not that fast; they are uncatchable unless they get the bad luck of spawning right next to someone on the gate. We used to send booster T3 through gate first in every fleet simply because they were guaranteed to get though. Its a crazy overpowered combination.

Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 41	Posted - 2017.02.28 14:41:38 - [261] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Naye Nathaniel wrote: You mean that you can't catch it? Well at least you can try with a fast tackler to decloak, bump or whatever - You have like 3-5 s to do it before it warp out; Null/Cloaky T3 is not that fast; they are uncatchable unless they get the bad luck of spawning right next to someone on the gate. We used to send booster T3 through gate first in every fleet simply because they were guaranteed to get though. Its a crazy overpowered combination. No it's not - u are really gonna be catched in t3 cloaky/null ship if there is a fast tackler to decloak u - even 10km is enough to decloak u and tackle you; Your guys just didn't tried enough;
Aka Evil Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 18:41:31 - [262] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: i dont understand, why we cant all be good at things, im sorry.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18714	Posted - 2017.02.28 19:56:26 - [263] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: No it's not - u are really gonna be catched in t3 cloaky/null ship if there is a fast tackler to decloak u - Nothing is catching a cruiser that can warp cloaked and can ignore bubbles. Nobody even bothers to even try anymore.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 670	Posted - 2017.02.28 22:26:16 - [264] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nothing is catching a cruiser that can warp cloaked and can ignore bubbles. Nobody even bothers to even try anymore. Wrong, nobody bothers to set a gate camp because of nullified ceptors, there were plenty of camps before them. And stop your goon propaganda, open zkillboard and check losses on nullified T3 covops. I bet you'll find them. Also check last summit minutes, CCP don't see the problem with nullified T3 for now. Removing covop from nullified sub is making null safer I don't see how this will help with anything. Aka Evil wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: i dont understand, why we cant all be good at things, im sorry. Ufold your priceless thoughts because I don't understand, why you quote 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18715	Posted - 2017.02.28 22:47:56 - [265] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: stop your goon propaganda. Try that again. Jeremiah Saken wrote: I bet you'll find them. Also check last summit minutes, CCP don't see the problem with nullified T3 for now. They also didn't see an issue with the svipul when they added it.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 670	Posted - 2017.03.01 06:29:23 - [266] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: stop your goon propaganda. Try that again. Oh I didn't see you're in PL now. Every time I see your smiling face I see goons Minister of Propaganda. Bad habit. Left goonies before or after WWB? baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: I bet you'll find them. Also check last summit minutes, CCP don't see the problem with nullified T3 for now. They also didn't see an issue with the svipul when they added it. Yet they try to change it. Removing covop+nullification configuration will kill exploration T3C, because Stratios will do the same for less price and no SP loss. "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 18717	Posted - 2017.03.01 08:39:12 - [267] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Oh I didn't see you're in PL now. Every time I see your smiling face I see goons Minister of Propaganda. Bad habit. Left goonies before or after WWB? Before, I got to put the empire I helped to build to the torch baltec1 wrote: Yet they try to change it. Removing covop+nullification configuration will kill exploration T3C, because Stratios will do the same for less price and no SP loss. That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 673	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:35:10 - [268] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years. If T3C will be nerfed to the level of others cruisers then covops with nullification will be the only reason to fly them. Why would anybody choose to fly them if they will dps as HaCs or scan as Stratios? The whole "swiss army knife hull" is a lie because rigs determine the role here. Tengu rigged for combat doesn't align as fast as explo one, rigged for agility. Anyway the sooner the better, any change that bring more hulls to the fleets are welcome unless it won't destroy some nonfleet gameplay. I predict that covops and nullification will be separeted. There are few changes to mobile warp disruption and HICs bubbles. Something bigger incoming. "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 18731	Posted - 2017.03.04 11:01:46 - [269] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years. If T3C will be nerfed to the level of others cruisers then covops with nullification will be the only reason to fly them. Why would anybody choose to fly them if they will dps as HaCs or scan as Stratios? The whole "swiss army knife hull" is a lie because rigs determine the role here. Tengu rigged for combat doesn't align as fast as explo one, rigged for agility. Anyway the sooner the better, any change that bring more hulls to the fleets are welcome unless it won't destroy some nonfleet gameplay. I predict that covops and nullification will be separeted. There are few changes to mobile warp disruption and HICs bubbles. Something bigger incoming. Cats out of the bag, T3C rebalance this summer =ƒÿê
Naye Nathaniel COBRA INC 61	Posted - 2017.03.04 11:06:20 - [270] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: That assumes T3C will stay expensive and keep the SP loss. Frankly, the cov ops and nullification is just one overpowered t3c ability out of a boatload of things about these ships that needs to be changed. These ships need a monumental overhaul which is probably why CCP have put it off for so many years. If T3C will be nerfed to the level of others cruisers then covops with nullification will be the only reason to fly them. Why would anybody choose to fly them if they will dps as HaCs or scan as Stratios? The whole "swiss army knife hull" is a lie because rigs determine the role here. Tengu rigged for combat doesn't align as fast as explo one, rigged for agility. Anyway the sooner the better, any change that bring more hulls to the fleets are welcome unless it won't destroy some nonfleet gameplay. I predict that covops and nullification will be separeted. There are few changes to mobile warp disruption and HICs bubbles. Something bigger incoming. Cats out of the bag, T3C rebalance this summer =ƒÿê U wish :) or if u mean that's they gonna give the Tengu power back then yeah im up to

Perkutor Jakuard Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 4	Posted - 2017.03.04 13:07:15 - [271] - Quote I'm with T2 haulers being nullified, logistics in null sec are quite difficult for small groups, you need a jump freighter to be in the safe side. Having T2 haulers nullfied would allow small corps or groups deploying material for squirmish campaigns of pvp or even ninja farming, creatin more and funny content than having haulers killed on a gatecamp.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3036	Posted - 2017.03.08 07:29:49 - [272] - Quote I think bubbles should have a warp disruption factor. Even with a value of 1 they will still be highly effective at catching combat fleets. The only people able to escape would have to have prepared for it beforehand, and you can tackle them with target interdiction, though you might not catch them all. I'm thinking tech-1 anchorable bubbles should have a disruption factor of just 1, while tech-2 could come in two varieties: one which increases radius and the other which has a reduced radius but a disrupt factor of 2. Meanwhile interdictor and heavy interdictor bubbles would be stronger, like 3 or 4. Capital ships could automatically receive a multiplied effect from a warp disrupt bubble, or maybe we're at the point where we no longer need to rely on bubbles to hold down capitals. Maybe there could be special bubbles for locking down capital ships. In any case, capital ship balance can be discussed separately. Perkutor Jakuard wrote: I'm with T2 haulers being nullified, logistics in null sec are quite difficult for small groups, you need a jump freighter to be in the safe side. Having T2 haulers nullfied would allow small corps or groups deploying material for squirmish campaigns of pvp or even ninja farming, creatin more and funny content than having haulers killed on a gatecamp. I don't know the answer but I agree that short-range logistics in nullsec needs a buff, hopefully so far that we can nerf long-range logistics and let short-range logistics take up the slack. 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."
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1585	Posted - 2017.03.08 15:51:28 - [273] - Quote Naye Nathaniel wrote: Damn this thread is so funny; Almost all Pandemic, Goons and all other related to them guys (gangers etc) are AGAINST a timers on anchored bubbles and against nullification of that bubbles; Others (most of them) not related to that group (not gangers etc) Agree that bubbles should decay and there should be even more few nullification ships; Im wonder what is the point of Pandemic, Goons and Gangers hmmm - not to mention some guy who were speaking about "align time" cause he can't instalock and pop a small agile ship anymore :( that is sad; So two groups: Gangers who LIVES and ENJOY the game when they can shoot targets sitting at gates in blobs in high/null/low sec shooting stuff which can't run away beeing insta popped; And 2nd group which is sick about being popped when they trying to enjoy the game and stand no chance cause of the mechanic which been many times changed to a favor of the 1st group :) DAMN BRING ME MOAR POPCORN! :) WTB pics of PL/Goons/"gangers" shooting plebes on bubbles in hi or losec. There are many "gangers" that think insta-warp nullified interceptors are pure AIDS and should never have been implemented, and/or anchorable bubbles should have decay timers. And from the sisi threads, it seems decay timers are going to happen. Personally, I've lived in nulsec for 8 years. I'm used to them. They are more of an annoyance than anything else. Its the manned ships like interdictors and HICs that get fleets or caps killed. As for BRs, I don't think they should be nullified. They align and warp as fast as interceptors. They also have a covert cloak, which means they can light covert cynos, and refuel a blops. Do they really need to be nullified? I assure you I will abuse the crap out of them. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18739	Posted - 2017.03.08 21:10:17 - [274] - Quote Soldarius wrote: WTB pics of PL/Goons/"gangers" shooting plebes on bubbles in hi or losec. There are many "gangers" that think insta-warp nullified interceptors are pure AIDS and should never have been implemented, and/or anchorable bubbles should have decay timers. And from the sisi threads, it seems decay timers are going to happen. Personally, I've lived in nulsec for 8 years. I'm used to them. They are more of an annoyance than anything else. Its the manned ships like interdictors and HICs that get fleets or caps killed. As for BRs, I don't think they should be nullified. They align and warp as fast as interceptors. They also have a covert cloak, which means they can light covert cynos, and refuel a blops. Do they really need to be nullified? I assure you I will abuse the crap out of them. They would become next to impossible to catch and very much abused like you say.
Perkutor Jakuard Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2017.03.14 13:52:54 - [275] - Quote Maybe nullifing all of them is not the solution, anyway I still think that low scale logistic in nullsec should be enhaced.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 67	Posted - 2017.03.19 16:21:32 - [276] - Quote Petit Julot wrote: CSM shouldn't weignt on the metagame, period. Please do whatever very important other thing you may have to do or just have a drink We're asking this to see if there is support to remove it from ships. CSM XI Member Twitter: Sullen_Decimus Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus Sullen Decimus for CSM XII
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 67	Posted - 2017.03.19 17:16:06 - [277] - Quote Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points. - having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat. - nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable. -nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors. Want more feedback CSM XI Member Twitter: Sullen_Decimus Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus Sullen Decimus for CSM XII
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3047	Posted - 2017.03.19 18:07:47 - [278] - Quote I agree we could use nullified shuttles, but maybe make them tech 2 shuttles that cost a bit. This shouldn't be available to alpha accounts and it shouldn't be something that new players rely on. Any new player trying to shuttle through nullsec for the first time should learn on first encasement within a bubble that that means you can't warp. If new players had access to a nullified ship, they might pass through several bubbles thinking they are a decoration, then lose their battleship in one later when they find out it's actually a tool. Also shuttles are very well seeded throughout New Eden, and access to nullified ships should not be that readily available and distributed. I'd keep strategic cruiser nullification subsystem. The real problem I have with them is that they are as powerful as battlecruisers while being as swift as cruisers. If they had tech 1 non-navy cruiser strength, their versatility and large number of skill bonuses would make them more than viable and they would still see common use. Currently they are generally fit in very specific overpowered combat layouts and some subsystems don't get used. Fix strategic cruisers? Yes, it should be at the top of the list! Remove nullification? It won't need to happen once they get fixed. They are currently used as force projection to bypass bubbles. Make them less of a combat ship and more of an exploration ship, and it'll probably become more popular to use stealth bombers and force recons than strategic cruisers--those bypass bubbles pretty well already and I don't see people complaining a whole lot. I would definitely remove nullification from interceptors. I imagine the purpose behind it was for an interceptor to run ahead of the fleet and tackle someone in the escaping fleet, bypassing any bubbles on the way that could slow them down. But that's just it, if the bubbles are operated by a third party, it'll slow down the escaping fleet as well. If the bubbles are placed by the escaping fleet to delay the interceptor, that's fair gameplay. Also, interceptors dive out of bubbles very quickly. I used to fly an interceptor around nullsec before they were nullified, I didn't need that. It was more expensive than a T1 frigate but more likely to survive, so it was good if I had implants. 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."
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3534	Posted - 2017.03.20 12:54:45 - [279] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points. - having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat. - nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable. -nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors. Want more feedback What is the problem you want to solve here, and to whom is it a problem? Ceptors which run and don't engage also don't fight per definition, ceptors which fight are catchable. I'm my own NPC alt.
Roamer Jakuard Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.03.20 14:38:32 - [280] - Quote Realitively new player speaking again. I personally like using an interceptors as an explorer interceptor. It is a thing. Losing nullification would really make that far less viable. Especially when it needs a greater skill investment, compared to covert ops, to work well in the first place. It's great having an alternative to covert ops. Take away that alternative, and I'm likely to become a cloaky AFK camper (which is itself complained about in another thread). Besides which, adding to the previous poster, if an interceptor that runs doesn't encourage any sort of engagement, a nullified shuttle certainly doesn't. I'm not going to pretend that I'm a nullsec warfare expert or anything. I just see interceptors as dogs of war, squeezing through defences and harassing by nipping at heals. They help provide threat in otherwise secure space (if used as such in the first place). Are they really main contenders and not just dogs? Honest question. I would rather see nullification gain something like jump fatigue when passing through bubbles. That would at least not destroy some of my own gameplay by losing nullification.

Maria Dragoon Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 128	Posted - 2017.03.24 22:48:20 - [281] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: Now that we have decaying bubbles I want to reopen this forum. here are some general view points. - having nullified travel isn't a bad thing. We recommended having shuttles with nullification as they would still allow easy travel, without bringing combat. - nullified interceptors are bad gameplay. They don't encourage any sort of engagement as they can run and are basically uncatchable. -nullified T3C's seem broken in situations but not at the level of interceptors. Want more feedback I would like to see nullified blockade runner, it will give them a stronger use then going afk cloaked till all the bad guys log off. Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius "A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18766	Posted - 2017.03.25 10:37:46 - [282] - Quote Maria Dragoon wrote: I would like to see nullified blockade runner, it will give them a stronger use then going afk cloaked till all the bad guys log off. Do not do this. They warp cloaked, align like a frigate and warp as fast as interceptors. If you nullify them too then these haulers will be impossible to catch. T3 cruisers don't need to lose nullification, they just need to lose the ability to have both nullification and a cov ops cloak and again, its effectively uncatchable. I would leave interceptors as they are but them losing nullification would not be the end of the world, we managed before without it.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.25 17:06:19 - [283] - Quote baltec1 wrote: T3 cruisers don't need to lose nullification, they just need to lose the ability to have both nullification and a cov ops cloak and again, its effectively uncatchable. I agree with this. Perhaps if the nullification navigation subsystem reduced the ship's agility (kind of like a reverse higgs anchor), and the covert ops electronic subsystem added a bunch of mass (for all that computer space), it would cause the combination of the two to make the ship align dangerously slow, enabling gankers to decloak it and point it before it gets away. A good balance would make this reasonably possible but still difficult. Technically it's possible to decloak a stealth bomber caught in a bubble--my own was lost once by a very skilled interceptor pilot who may have also gotten very lucky--but when I say reasonably possible, I mean a feat that can be replicated over and over again successfully by a skilled pilot. But it shouldn't be as easy as decloaking a battleship, for instance. This change would also nerf the two subsystems when used individually. They could grant the ship battlecruiser attributes to make up for the reduced agility. Other subsystems might do similarly, since some are giving battlecruiser offenses they might as well give battlecruiser size and agility. And the tech 2 resists can be replaced with battlecruiser hit points. Perhaps each subsystem would add hit points, some adding a fifth of a battlecruiser's hit points and some adding a fifth of a cruiser's hit points. If you build the thing with all battlecruiser subsystems, it'll have battlecruiser sig radius, align, bump radius, velocity, scan resolution, and mass to go along with its battlecruiser targeting range, hit points, powergrid, slots, hardpoints, and CPU as well as a higher material price for those subsystems (or simply reduce the price for the now cruiser subsystems). 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."
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2942	Posted - 2017.03.25 19:57:01 - [284] - Quote When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS. This nullified cloaky ability makes a huge difference to smaller entities who use this to move their stuff in and out, removing it will remove an unique ship type that takes time to train and enables different play styles. Of course thos people who want to lockdown space and get easy kills at gate camps will love removing the nullified cloaky T3C. The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it. When I first started playing there was so many gate camps in 0.0 with bubbles it was silly, the thought of seeing that level of lame play again sets my teeth on edge. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.25 20:21:46 - [285] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS. How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines? Dracvlad wrote: The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it. That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes. Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics. 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."
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2942	Posted - 2017.03.25 22:45:45 - [286] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dracvlad wrote: When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS. How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines? Dracvlad wrote: The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it. That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes. Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics. But don't take my word for it. Baltec1 says strategic cruisers should take major nerfs. He's a member of Pandemic Legion, who is known for flying around in big fleets of strategic cruisers, dominating everyone. Pandemic Legion isn't afraid of ship nerfs. If every ship was balanced, Pandemic Legion would still maintain their stranglehold on other nullsec groups because they're excellent pilots with tons of resources. These balance changes we nullbloc folks suggest aren't selfish moves; we genuinely wish to improve the general balance of the game. But you can be assured that unbalances are best taken advantage of by powerful nullsec alliances. Big alliances tend to move T3C fleets without bothering to use cloaks and nullifiers, hell I moved in a T3C fleet to fight PL the other day and it did not have any of those sub systems. I repeat the point, logistics is key to what small groups use T3C's for, either to move small stuff through or scout for a BR. Remove this ability and all we will see is gate camps everywhere. What exactly changed specifically to help small corps or solo players? It is easy to say there was but not so easy to give details. Yes sov is one, but that is small alliance more than anything else. Why would I take baltec1's word for anything? This is not about PL it is about removing a ship fit choice that enables small groups to do logistics. Hell what would be left setting up Astrahus's on every damn route in, yeah sure small groups will be able to do that... Thankfully I am not in a small group any more, but if I was I would be looking at CCP and the CSM with acute angst over this. This is a change that is not needed, they T3C's are fine as they are. The major alliances want this change to be able to strangle everyone else out, if CCP does this then I have to wonder. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18767	Posted - 2017.03.26 02:57:40 - [287] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dracvlad wrote: When a T3C is fitted with a Nullified and covert subsystem enabling them to move around 0.0 with a lower level of risk it has to nerf the ship so it has less tank and less DPS. How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines? Dracvlad wrote: The CSM is full of large alliance players who want to destroy solo or small group play, doing this would really make it impossible for smaller groups or solo players to operate as there will be a big increase in gate camps for lazy players to get easy kills. CCP do not do it. That's not really true. The CSM has largely supported changes that have thus far greatly improved the small group play options. Small corporations are doing better than ever before, and while there have been CSM members directly supporting them, you can really thank the big nullbloc CSM delegates for those changes. Nullsec is hard for small groups to get into because of the playerbase that resides there, not because of the game dynamics. But don't take my word for it. Baltec1 says strategic cruisers should take major nerfs. He's a member of Pandemic Legion, who is known for flying around in big fleets of strategic cruisers, dominating everyone. Pandemic Legion isn't afraid of ship nerfs. If every ship was balanced, Pandemic Legion would still maintain their stranglehold on other nullsec groups because they're excellent pilots with tons of resources. These balance changes we nullbloc folks suggest aren't selfish moves; we genuinely wish to improve the general balance of the game. But you can be assured that unbalances are best taken advantage of by powerful nullsec alliances. Big alliances tend to move T3C fleets without bothering to use cloaks and nullifiers, hell I moved in a T3C fleet to fight PL the other day and it did not have any of those sub systems. I repeat the point, logistics is key to what small groups use T3C's for, either to move small stuff through or scout for a BR. Remove this ability and all we will see is gate camps everywhere. What exactly changed specifically to help small corps or solo players? It is easy to say there was but not so easy to give details. Yes sov is one, but that is small alliance more than anything else. Why would I take baltec1's word for anything? This is not about PL it is about removing a ship fit choice that enables small groups to do logistics. Hell what would be left setting up Astrahus's on every damn route in, yeah sure small groups will be able to do that... Thankfully I am not in a small group any more, but if I was I would be looking at CCP and the CSM with acute angst over this. This is a change that is not needed, they T3C's are fine as they are. The major alliances want this change to be able to strangle everyone else out, if CCP does this then I have to wonder. It's incredibly overpowered and used by everyone because it's next to impossible to stop a nullified cloaky t3c. That's why we used to use them as fleet boosters. It's why we still use them for running 10/10, level 4s and one of the big reasons we use them rather than pilgrims. They should never have been allowed to have both cov ops cloaks and nullification at the same time. Both are very powerful on their own.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 265	Posted - 2017.03.26 03:56:45 - [288] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: How does that stop them from moving in strategic cruisers and refitting them for combat once they're inside enemy lines? What stops them is the fact that refitting takes time, and then if you want to go to another system you either have to refit back (and refit yet again once you move), or take your chances jumping through a gate without your cloak + bubble immunity. So if a fleet of nullified T3s jumps into your system you have at least a minute or two to react before they can engage you. IOW, all of their targets have plenty of time to dock up, and if you want to AFK cloak to counter that then they're forced to refit back to the weaker travel fit. The better use for refitting in space is PvE T3 cruisers, since you can use the travel fit to get to your farming site, swap to combat fit to do your farming, and swap back for the trip home or if anything appears in local. And that primarily benefits solo/small group PvE players who don't have the power to claim a PvE system openly and carebear in battleships/carriers/etc.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.26 04:16:56 - [289] - Quote I'm not talking about bypassing gate security in order to shotgun a system for stragglers. Strategic cruisers have the power of battleships with the maneuverability of cruisers. Maneuvering them into enemy territory is between the level of maneuvering in a fleet of battleships, and maneuvering in a fleet of carriers. They can be used to engage fleets of any size from cruisers to battleships, they can siege starbases and citadels, and they can blockade systems. 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."
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 265	Posted - 2017.03.26 04:42:33 - [290] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I'm not talking about bypassing gate security in order to shotgun a system for stragglers. Then what exactly are you talking about? You mentioned T3s moving in and refitting for combat once they're inside enemy lines, so if that isn't about bypassing gate security then what is it? Quote: They can be used to engage fleets of any size from cruisers to battleships, they can siege starbases and citadels, and they can blockade systems. Yes, they can do those things if they are fit for combat. That means giving up the covert ops cloak, since none of the cloak subsystems have anywhere near the firepower of the pure combat options. A cloaky nullified T3 is incredibly evasive and useful for ganking isolated targets (especially with a covert cyno fitted), but it isn't very effective in a straight-up fight against someone who is prepared for it. And the delay to refit from cloak to combat fits is more than long enough to ensure that you're only going to face enemies that are warned of your existence and ready to face a T3 fleet. And of course if you're bringing a major T3 fleet then the cloak is just redundant. You can take a pure combat fit and brush aside whatever token gatecamps are in your path with overwhelming numbers. You only need to sneak if you're bringing a weak force that can't engage directly without getting massacred.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.26 05:41:40 - [291] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: so if that isn't about bypassing gate security then what is it? It is about bypassing security, it is not about skirmish tactics. It's about brute force engagements. Merin Ryskin wrote: Yes, they can do those things if they are fit for combat. Which is easily done in seconds by carried fittings once docked in a station or even just with a mobile depot. 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."
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 265	Posted - 2017.03.26 05:45:31 - [292] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: It is about bypassing security, it is not about skirmish tactics. It's about brute force engagements. If you're talking about brute force engagements then you don't need a cloak to bypass security. You fit full combat, jump into their system, and wreck anything sitting on the gate. You only need to screw around with cloaking if you have a weak force that can't take a head-on fight. Quote: Which is easily done in seconds by carried fittings once docked in a station or even just with a mobile depot. You realize that a mobile depot takes a full minute to anchor, right? You get where you're going, drop the mobile depot, wait 60 seconds, and can finally start refitting your ship. By this point, since you've been in local for over a minute (and announced in intel channels for much longer) everyone has docked up and anything you gained from sneaking in cloaked has been lost. And of course if you have access to a station to refit then you control the system, and have no need to use a cloak to sneak into it. Just fly out in full combat fit and start killing stuff.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18768	Posted - 2017.03.26 08:58:26 - [293] - Quote Merin Ryskin wrote: If you're talking about brute force engagements then you don't need a cloak to bypass security. Brute force doesn't always work, lots of people use the cloak and nullification to get into a system then refit to combat. Merin Ryskin wrote: You realize that a mobile depot takes a full minute to anchor, right? You get where you're going, drop the mobile depot, wait 60 seconds, and can finally start refitting your ship. By this point, since you've been in local for over a minute (and announced in intel channels for much longer) everyone has docked up and anything you gained from sneaking in cloaked has been lost. We have deployed citadels in enemy staging systems, MTU for refitting are not much of an issue.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2943	Posted - 2017.03.26 09:42:32 - [294] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I'm not talking about bypassing gate security in order to shotgun a system for stragglers. Strategic cruisers have the power of battleships with the maneuverability of cruisers. Maneuvering them into enemy territory is between the level of maneuvering in a fleet of battleships, and maneuvering in a fleet of carriers. They can be used to engage fleets of any size from cruisers to battleships, they can siege starbases and citadels, and they can blockade systems. The key thing is that they have fitting options, make them nullified and covert and they are very ineffective. The more important point is that Battleships are too weak in terms of tank. I want to get back to the logistics of small entities, when I was in Stain I had to use T3C's to move stuff around, big alliances do not use them for logistics, they have Citadels and jump freighters. If CCP at the behest of a big alliance dominated CSM do this then kiss goodbye to another group of players. Stain for example was left with one kickout station from loec for JF's or WH logistics for small groups, removing nullified and cloaks from T3C's will reduce options and make it so much more difficult. I had to use a covert nullified T3C as a scout for my BR or DST to have any chance of getting them through. TEST have JF's jumping to Citadels, which I see quite often, so you have no idea and baltec1 certainly does not. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 10:16:04 - [295] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The key thing is that they have fitting options, make them nullified and covert and they are very ineffective. Better than their cov ops cruiser counterparts while also being near impossible to catch. Dracvlad wrote: The more important point is that Battleships are too weak in terms of tank. In what way? Dracvlad wrote: I want to get back to the logistics of small entities, when I was in Stain I had to use T3C's to move stuff around, big alliances do not use them for logistics, they have Citadels and jump freighters. We do use them for logistics. Dracvlad wrote: I had to use a covert nullified T3C as a scout for my BR or DST to have any chance of getting them through. Blocade runners do not need a scout, they have a cov ops cloak, align like a frigate and warp as fast as an interceptor. Dracvlad wrote: The problem you will get is that with this change we will see a lot more gate camps and that strangles the game imo. Nope. What we will see is people having to actually put a little bit more effort in beating a gate camp than clicking the warp to next gate button.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2943	Posted - 2017.03.26 12:37:18 - [296] - Quote baltec1, I am with a number of people who know you and respect you, however you know how easy it is to catch BR's with bubbles, seriously mate. I was using them to scout for BR's, rather more work than warping gate to gate. Also if you have ever jumped like I have into a large fleet on the other side of a gate setup to catch people you will know just how easy it is to die, I was lucky because I had warp core stabs on the Tengu and just got out. BR's need a scout, they are easy to kill, very easy with bubbles. This is a bad move against smaller groups, I am with a big group that can drop Astrahus down and JF to them, but I am still able to say why this is wrong. You also know that I have a thing about AFK cloaking camping and it is very difficult to stop T3C's but I have no issue with ATK camping and I see that a nullified cloaky T3C gives options. REMOVING the ability to cloak and nulify from these ships is a bad move for overall game balance. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 16:00:13 - [297] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1, I am with a number of people who know you and respect you, however you know how easy it is to catch BR's with bubbles, seriously mate. Only the idiots that don't bother to even use bookmarks. A good BR pilot is incredibly hard to catch. Dracvlad wrote: Also if you have ever jumped like I have into a large fleet on the other side of a gate setup to catch people you will know just how easy it is to die, I was lucky because I had warp core stabs on the Tengu and just got out. We used to jump booster tengu into fleets of hundreds with no fear of losing them. Dracvlad wrote: BR's need a scout, they are easy to kill, very easy with bubbles. Only if the pilot is bad. Dracvlad wrote: REMOVING the ability to cloak and nulify from these ships is a bad move for overall game balance. Giving it in the first place was the poor balance move. A cov ops cloak on a cruiser is a powerful tool. Nullification is a powerful tool. Combined and you make a cruise sized ship all but impossible to catch. Piloting skill is something that should matter when trying to break through a camp.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2946	Posted - 2017.03.26 16:11:03 - [298] - Quote I noticed your normal evasion tactics, it is not so much warping to the gate, it is jumping through and finding an effective gate camp, your BM's will not help then. Skill does not really come into it apart from hoping that the person on the other side of teh gate is useless. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 16:22:59 - [299] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I noticed your normal evasion tactics, it is not so much warping to the gate, it is jumping through and finding an effective gate camp, your BM's will not help then. Skill does not really come into it apart from hoping that the person on the other side of teh gate is useless. You fit a MWD, pulse that and hit the cloak. BR are fast ships and highly maneuverable, good piloting gets you through. That's why they are called blockade runners...
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2946	Posted - 2017.03.26 16:56:52 - [300] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I noticed your normal evasion tactics, it is not so much warping to the gate, it is jumping through and finding an effective gate camp, your BM's will not help then. Skill does not really come into it apart from hoping that the person on the other side of teh gate is useless. You fit a MWD, pulse that and hit the cloak. BR are fast ships and highly maneuverable, good piloting gets you through. That's why they are called blockade runners... Well I know some very skilled players who did that and still died also don't forget that the mechanics have been changed to make it so even a noob can do it effectively, for me it is more like hoping that a useless player is the one putting up the bubble and I can say that as I have actually evaded a fair few myself using exactly what you just posted, the issue is that if you have anyone remotely good camping you have little chance. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 17:01:56 - [301] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well I know some very skilled players who did that and still died also don't forget that the mechanics have been changed to make it so even a noob can do it effectively, for me it is more like hoping that a useless player is the one putting up the bubble and I can say that as I have actually evaded a fair few myself using exactly what you just posted, the issue is that if you have anyone remotely good camping you have little chance. Its seems you are not very good at this game. Everything you seem to try ends in disaster and you running to the forums calling for nerfs and over powered abilities.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2946	Posted - 2017.03.26 17:58:14 - [302] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I know some very skilled players who did that and still died also don't forget that the mechanics have been changed to make it so even a noob can do it effectively, for me it is more like hoping that a useless player is the one putting up the bubble and I can say that as I have actually evaded a fair few myself using exactly what you just posted, the issue is that if you have anyone remotely good camping you have little chance. Its seems you are not very good at this game. Everything you seem to try ends in disaster and you running to the forums calling for nerfs and over powered abilities. I wonder if you even know what a BR can pull off Well if you can see a BR or DST loss on any of my characters I would be surprised, you see when I gated the Sabre had more than a BR to deal with at which point they did the running. But if that is being bad at the game, I am bad at this game. You are the one calling for a nerf not me, I rather like Strategic Cruisers as they are and they are not over powered when nullified and covert. At a game balance level; they are an effective tool for solo or small groups to be able to move around null sec, which is something that large alliances hate and which is why people like you want them nerfed. The nullified and covert side of things has little real value for you guys, because with a recon ship you just pop the cyno and game over if caught at a gate. I expect that CCP along with the CSM will make a bad decision on this, but as I use a JF service for my needs I can sit there going meh while thinking what a stupid thing to do and wait to see yet more players call it a day, which seems to be what you want. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:02:38 - [303] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well if you can see a BR or DST loss on any of my characters I would be surprised, you see when I gated the Sabre had more than a BR to deal with at which point they did the running. But if that is being bad at the game, I am bad at this game. You are the one calling for a nerf not me, I rather like Strategic Cruisers as they are and they are not over powered when nullified and covert. At a game balance level; they are an effective tool for solo or small groups to be able to move around null sec, which is something that large alliances hate and which is why people like you want them nerfed. The nullified and covert side of things has little real value for you guys, because with a recon ship you just pop the cyno and game over if caught at a gate. I expect that CCP along with the CSM will make a bad decision on this, but as I use a JF service for my needs I can sit there going meh while thinking what a stupid thing to do and wait to see yet more players call it a day, which seems to be what you want. Uncatchable ships are very much a problem especially ships as powerful as T3C. We use nullified cloaking T3C just as much if not more than the small guys.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2946	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:08:24 - [304] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well if you can see a BR or DST loss on any of my characters I would be surprised, you see when I gated the Sabre had more than a BR to deal with at which point they did the running. But if that is being bad at the game, I am bad at this game. You are the one calling for a nerf not me, I rather like Strategic Cruisers as they are and they are not over powered when nullified and covert. At a game balance level; they are an effective tool for solo or small groups to be able to move around null sec, which is something that large alliances hate and which is why people like you want them nerfed. The nullified and covert side of things has little real value for you guys, because with a recon ship you just pop the cyno and game over if caught at a gate. I expect that CCP along with the CSM will make a bad decision on this, but as I use a JF service for my needs I can sit there going meh while thinking what a stupid thing to do and wait to see yet more players call it a day, which seems to be what you want. Uncatchable ships are very much a problem especially ships as powerful as T3C. We use nullified cloaking T3C just as much if not more than the small guys. Is that ship powerful with a covert cloak and nullification, nope, it may have a decent tank, but DPS is anaemic, you always generalise which is why I hope CCP never listens to you. Of course you use them, but the value to you is less, your logistics are easy, just plonk down an Astrahus and you are good to go, solo and small groups cannot do that. What will happen is if they remove the ability to covert cloak and be nullified is that there will be a big increase in gate camps which is not really a good thing for Eve especially for alpha's wanting to move around 0.0. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:18:52 - [305] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Is that ship powerful with a covert cloak and nullification, nope, it may have a decent tank, but DPS is anaemic, you always generalise which is why I hope CCP never listens to you. Better than the recons. Dracvlad wrote: Of course you use them, but the value to you is less, your logistics are easy, just plonk down an Astrahus and you are good to go, solo and small groups cannot do that. Astra doesn't help with running missions in null, running 10/10s, exploration, personal transportation or when out hunting. Every reason a small group has to use these ships also applies equally as much to us. Dracvlad wrote: What will happen is if they remove the ability to covert cloak and be nullified is that there will be a big increase in gate camps which is not really a good thing for Eve especially for alpha's wanting to move around 0.0. No there won't. The only difference is the current gatecamps will now stand the same chance at catching a T3C as every other cov ops cruiser.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 731	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:31:50 - [306] - Quote If nullified cloaked T3C are so much problem to the nullsec alliances, in PVP combat sense, then nerf combat abilities on mentioned subsystems. If nullsec alliances have problems with nullified cloaked T3C passing by gates and dropping mobile depotes to refit then there is no problem with T3C. There is a problem with nullsec alliances letting them refit. baltec1 as always see only part of the problem - T3C blobing. It's a more complex change. Abilites to light cyno behind enemy lines, exploration vessels (and sleepers site - they were designed to do in T3C), possible WHs income shake (in bad way). When nullsec alliance memeber try to improve the game I'm always sceptical. Nerfing the ability to move around the cluster will not improve gameplay for anyone. It will lead to stagnation. What happen to WHs spawing in null? "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 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:42:01 - [307] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: If nullified cloaked T3C are so much problem to the nullsec alliances, in PVP combat sense, then nerf combat abilities on mentioned subsystems. If nullsec alliances have problems with nullified cloaked T3C passing by gates and dropping mobile depotes to refit then there is no problem with T3C. There is a problem with nullsec alliances letting them refit. baltec1 as always see only part of the problem - T3C blobing. It's a more complex change. Abilites to light cyno behind enemy lines, exploration vessels (and sleepers site - they were designed to do in T3C), possible WHs income shake (in bad way). When nullsec alliance memeber try to improve the game I'm always sceptical. Nerfing the ability to move around the cluster will not improve gameplay for anyone. It will lead to stagnation. What happen to WHs spawing in null? There is no issue with cov ops cloaks, there is no issue with nullification. The problem is a cruiser that has both. All it has to do to break through any gate camp is click warp to next gate, every other cov ops needs to actually be piloted past the gate camp.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:49:53 - [308] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: My focus has been on the very important role these ships setup for covert and nullified play for solo or small groups in terms of logistics and when they are fit for covert and nuliified they are very gimped, the balance is fine, stop crying for nerfs... No you are trying to keep something that benefits you greatly.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 732	Posted - 2017.03.26 18:52:39 - [309] - Quote baltec1 wrote: There is no issue with cov ops cloaks, there is no issue with nullification. The problem is a cruiser that has both. All it has to do to break through any gate camp is click warp to next gate, every other cov ops needs to actually be piloted past the gate camp. Good, it means you can't foritify you carebares nullsec iskprinting imperiums. What happen to WHs spawing change btw? "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 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 19:07:35 - [310] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: There is no issue with cov ops cloaks, there is no issue with nullification. The problem is a cruiser that has both. All it has to do to break through any gate camp is click warp to next gate, every other cov ops needs to actually be piloted past the gate camp. Good, it means you can't foritify you carebares nullsec iskprinting imperiums. What happen to WHs spawing change btw? Because we are well known for our vast holdings..

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 732	Posted - 2017.03.26 19:13:22 - [311] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Because we are well known for our vast holdings.. Forget to use " " when I typed imperiums. "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 18769	Posted - 2017.03.26 19:22:30 - [312] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: Because we are well known for our vast holdings.. Forget to use " " when I typed imperiums. We are the ones that are infiltrating that space, a nerf like this will make it harder for us to do so yet I still ask for it because nullified cloaky T3C are laughably easy to get past any gate camp.
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2947	Posted - 2017.03.26 19:58:08 - [313] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: My focus has been on the very important role these ships setup for covert and nullified play for solo or small groups in terms of logistics and when they are fit for covert and nuliified they are very gimped, the balance is fine, stop crying for nerfs... No you are trying to keep something that benefits you greatly. Yes I value it greatly, and yes it will reduce my enjoyment of this game a lot, and it will impact a lot of people who operate in null sec in the smaller groups. Since I have been able to use a T3C the covert nullified fits are my preferred ship because it enables me to be hard to kill, not an easy kill. One of my friends stopped playing Eve because as he said it, it was now too easy to catch people. That is what you want, easy kills. Anyway I have made my point on this thread, I expect that I will be ignored by the CSM and of course more importantly by CCP. These ships when covert cloaked and nullified give me the greatest pleasure in the game, they have enabled me to operate in places that would be impossible otherwise, they have prevented me from being camped out of the game, they have been a major reason why I am still in the game because they make me hard to kill while the game has become easier for the hunters. Yeah damn right they benefit me greatly, but they do not benefit you or your alliance or alliances like yours to the same degree that they benefit the smaller groups and tah is why you want them gone so you can squeeze the life out of who you want. CCP don't ruin this part of the game, it will be as foolish an error as leaving the tanks of the mining ships so low that a single Catalyst could kill them for two and a half damn years and you paid for that, I told you then and you ignored me... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18777	Posted - 2017.03.26 20:11:17 - [314] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Yes I value it greatly, and yes it will reduce my enjoyment of this game a lot, and it will impact a lot of people who operate in null sec in the smaller groups. Since I have been able to use a T3C the covert nullified fits are my preferred ship because it enables me to be hard to kill, not an easy kill. Hence why it is imbalanced. You have an I win button vs gate camps, naturally you want to keep it. Dracvlad wrote: One of my friends stopped playing Eve because as he said it, it was now too easy to catch people. Every single subject you trot out this line. Nobody believes you anymore when you say this. Dracvlad wrote: That is what you want, easy kills. Putting them on the same level as every other cov ops does not make them easy to kill. Dracvlad wrote: Yeah damn right they benefit me greatly, but they do not benefit you or your alliance or alliances like yours to the same degree that they benefit the smaller groups and tah is why you want them gone so you can squeeze the life out of who you want. We have more uses for them that your organisation does. Dracvlad wrote: CCP don't ruin this part of the game, it will be as foolish an error as leaving the tanks of the mining ships so low that a single Catalyst could kill them for two and a half damn years and you paid for that, I told you then and you ignored me... The hulk had the exact same base tank as the zealot. This is the thing with you, you don't like balance, what you want is to always have the cards in your favor. Which is why you are kicking up such a stink over the very idea of having to put in the same effort as every other cov ops ship out there.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.26 20:38:43 - [315] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: when they are fit for covert and nuliified they are very gimped, the balance is fine, They can easily refit for combat. Dracvlad wrote: my Proteus has 280m3 cargo space, each subsystem is 40m3 plus the different fit ammo and so on, it really is not that effective. the only thing this enables is people using their T3C to get around gate camps and then re-fit and that is fairly niche. Install your primary offense, defense, and engineering subsystem onto the ship, along with the covert and nullification subsystems. All of your primary high slot fittings should be on the ship, as well as drones already in the drone bay. Mid slot, you might throw on a shield extender or omni hardener but otherwise you can have just the primary fitting. Low slots, all warp stabilizers. Rigs, your primaries should be installed. All you need to carry in cargo is low slot fittings, the last mid slot fitting, your primary navigation and electronics subsystems, and a mobile depot. That's about 200-215 m3 cargo space. You could stand to deck out the whole mid slot range with a full shield tank and still have cargo room for ammo. The way you protect your blockade runner is by not jumping into a massive gate camp. If you fly it around aimlessly, trying to make a long distance haul to some far away system, you're likely to get stuck in a giant gate camp somewhere along the way. But even for a long haul, if you plan your route, you can likely avoid dangerous systems. Here's some tips for nullsec travel in ~~general~~ anything slippery: 1.) Check the map. Set it to show average pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. Systems with bright blips should be avoided. 2.) Dip into empire space for long trips. Check your route, if you can travel considerably less total nullsec by dipping into lowsec, you'll benefit from it even if your trip is a few jumps longer. Even if your security status is red, you can still jump safely through lowsec assuming you're flying something slippery and you keep moving. Players will almost invariably stop you better than gate guns. Except in lowsec, where the players are sometimes almost as soft as the carebears in highsec. 3.) Check the map. Keep checking it along the way. A system might have had low activity ten minutes ago when you set out, and high activity now, when you're about to jump through. 4.) Try to avoid bottlenecks. If you're planning your route to take you between two high-activity zones or through a pipe (chain of systems with no branching gates) then it may look safe now but could turn ugly while you're stuck in the bottleneck. The best route is a clear route with plenty of clear systems all around it. You'll never find this, so just look for the best you can find. 5.) Check the map. Check other statistics while planning your trip, such as ship kills or sovereignty. If Goonswarm Federation holds the system(s), it might not be a safe route even if it's currently empty. If it's on the fringe of TEST Alliance Please Ignore space, you might be okay. If it runs right through Curatores Veritatis Alliance space then you better check if you're red to them. (You probably won't be if you've never had dealings with them and are in a low profile alliance. You probably will be if you're in a nullbloc alliance or any major nullsec corporation.) You can pretty safely travel through CVA space if you are green to them. You can pretty safely travel through some alliances' NBSI space because they vary in skill in camping territory. So know your astrography and check that stuff. You can learn a bit about an alliance just by checking the activity and kill statistics in their space every now and then. 6.) Get intel. It's wonderful if you can recruit a starry-eyed newbro with no implants to fly a frigate ahead of you for ten mil and provide excellent underskilled intel over comms, but even simply having an intel channel over your local space is highly useful because you can be warned of incoming fleets. The map gives you intel. Everything you can learn about the space ahead of you is intel. You can use an alt as a forward scout, and you can get an alpha alt for free, also dual-boxing is fully legal in EVE as long as you aren't using keystroke replicating bots. There is lots of intel available to you, and you need to do your homework and review it. 7.) Check the map. Plan for stops along the way if you have a long trip. Find a lowsec, highsec, bluespace, NPC null, or CVA island (preferably not NPC null) where you can dock up to take a break and rescan the map and other intel sources before continuing your trip. Along the trip you might find yourself being pursued and very happy to have that stopping point. Or you might wind up surrounded by activity. Don't be afraid to log out and come back the next day or close to down time. 8.) Fly when your mind is clear. The safest times to fly in general are near downtime, but it's also a lot safer to fly during your mental uptime. If your mind is getting tired from scanning all that intel, find a safe place to put down and take a break, clear your mind, watch some radiotelevision and/or Netflix, and come back when you're ready to perform. Make sure you're aware that people could have seen you dock and set up a station camp for you. (This is why I said try to avoid using NPC nullsec as your stopping point.) But even if you're camped, you can just sit docked until they're gone. But understand they may try to fake you out. Don't burst out the moment they exit system, rather you might just wait until it's been quiet for a while. AND DON'T CHAT IN LOCAL WHILE IN A HOSTILE SYSTEM or else you're pretty much guaranteeing a gate camp at the next outgate. 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."
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.26 20:39:31 - [316] - Quote -reserved- 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."
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2947	Posted - 2017.03.26 20:53:32 - [317] - Quote baltec1, you only talk about balance when it suits you. Reaver Glitterstim, good stuff I know all that but it is good to post it for others. One of the thing I did was just go to an out of the way unused system in a T3C, that was before mobile depots by the way, so was not re-fitting, had to use two to get enough DPS for belt ratting, that is how gimped they are. Anyway they add something different to the game which certain large alliances do not like. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18779	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:04:13 - [318] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1, you only talk about balance when it suits you. How exactly does this benefit me? I'm literally nerfing my ability to infiltrate my favorite hunting grounds.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 733	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:14:01 - [319] - Quote baltec1 wrote: How exactly does this benefit me? I'm literally nerfing my ability to infiltrate my favorite hunting grounds. Now you lost me. What favourite hunting ground? Provi bloc that don't even shoot back? I remember goons raid on provi at the start on fozzie sov. And you want that nerf for what? Less fighting opportunites? Because that's what you will get. Why you avoiding the answer on my question about Wh's connections? We been there, on safer null, and it was not good at all because change was reversed. "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 - 2017.03.26 21:25:16 - [320] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Reaver Glitterstim, good stuff I know all that but it is good to post it for others. One of the thing I did was just go to an out of the way unused system in a T3C, that was before mobile depots by the way, so was not re-fitting, had to use two to get enough DPS for belt ratting, that is how gimped they are. Anyway they add something different to the game which certain large alliances do not like, I did not say your alliance is one of them, It was possible even back then for strategic cruisers to refit inside enemy borders, provided you found a good spot. In your case you didn't have the best spot. And I'm having trouble understanding how you didn't have enough DPS for belt ratting, as you should have been able to get more DPS than a destroyer. With a proper combat subsystem and without weapon upgrades, you should have had over 400 DPS. Provided you were hitting the right kind of rats, you should have been easily able to break the battleship rats' tank. If your skills were too weak, then you might have been better served flying a cheaper ship in a less dangerous place. My alliance is probably the first to dislike any change that hurts big nullsec alliances. We'll cope, but we'll grumble about it. Goonswarm will laugh, and Pandemic Legion will plot to take advantage of it. I assure you that Baltec1 is not trying to support changes to improve his own killboard stats. With stats like these, maybe he is suggesting this for his own benefit, as in it's a change that will make PVP less easy and thus more fun. 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 18780	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:28:52 - [321] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: How exactly does this benefit me? I'm literally nerfing my ability to infiltrate my favorite hunting grounds. Now you lost me. What favourite hunting ground? Provi bloc that don't even shoot back? I remember goons raid on provi at the start on fozzie sov. And you want that nerf for what? Less fighting opportunites? Because that's what you will get. Why you avoiding the answer on my question about Wh's connections? We been there, on safer null, and it was not good at all because change was reversed. My favorite hunting grounds are behind these gate camps, especially goons. I'm not reducing my pvp opportunities, what I am nerfing is the ability to safely bypass their defenses. A T3C would have the exact same risk with those camps as every other cov ops cruiser.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 3050	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:36:56 - [322] - Quote I, also, will support changes that directly nerf me. I have long felt that ECM is overpowered and have on multiple occasions supported nerfing it. I fly scorpions about as often as I can, and I am pretty skilled when it comes to jamming out other pilots. Usually when I'm up against an enemy jamming ship, I win and get more jams, possibly jamming out the enemy jamming ship in the process. But ECM is overpowered, and me in an ECM boat is even more overpowered. So nerf that and nerf me. I welcome the balance. I don't mind changing my tactics to suit my opponents. I like flying Armageddons, but if we're up against a fleet of Vagabonds, it might make a lot more sense to meet them with Cerberuses, so I'll fly a Cerberus if that's what fleet doctrine calls for. Or I'll fly a Newbro Caracal if I lack the skills and/or ISK to fly Cerberus. https://zkillboard.com/kill/51343684/ Just wanted to show off my shield Scorpion lost in an armor capital fight. Had I been armor fit, I'd have taken a lot more punishment before going down, but those capital reps are really something. No tank and 180k damage to take me down. 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 733	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:39:31 - [323] - Quote baltec1 wrote: My favorite hunting grounds are behind these gate camps, especially goons. I'm not reducing my pvp opportunities, what I am nerfing is the ability to safely bypass their defenses. A T3C would have the exact same risk with those camps as every other cov ops cruiser. and at the same time fleets with "only nullifiy" T3Cs almost won't be harmed? Because 400 nullified tengus that you raided provi bloc will still dictate terms of engagement? Right. CCP will push this change and you will have dead nullsec. Printscreen jumps in nullsec today and after the change, you will see the difference. "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 18780	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:44:50 - [324] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: and at the same time fleets with "only nullifiy" T3Cs almost won't be harmed? Because 400 nullified tengus that you raided provi bloc will still dictate terms of engagement? Right. CCP will push this change and you will have dead nullsec. Printscreen jumps in nullsec today and after the change, you will see the difference. Actually I expect T3C to get a massive nerf that will put them on par with navy cruisers rather than battleships. They will be nullified but will not be sporting the current heavy tanks and firepower they currently enjoy. Which is also a good thing.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 733	Posted - 2017.03.26 21:53:51 - [325] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Actually I expect T3C to get a massive nerf that will put them on par with navy cruisers rather than battleships. They will be nullified but will not be sporting the current heavy tanks and firepower they currently enjoy. Which is also a good thing. Nail to the coffin. We don't need another navy cruisers. T3C biggest flavors are covops and nullified systems. If tank and dps will be hitted hard no point of using them. Swiss army knife is bull****. Rigs determine role. This is a min-max community. Nobody will use T3Cs. Read the rorqual nerf thread. No waterpool big enough to gather all that tears. "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 - 2017.03.26 22:01:39 - [326] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: If tank and dps will be hitted hard no point of using them. Swiss army knife is bull****. Rigs determine role. This is a min-max community. Nobody will use T3Cs. Most of the community is all about raw power, because they are all about warfare. But solo and small groups who run PVE in dangerous space LOVE Swiss Army Knife ships, if they know what's good for them. I'd link my Swiss Army Myrmidon lossmail, but I can't find it. 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 18781	Posted - 2017.03.26 22:01:59 - [327] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Nail to the coffin. We don't need another navy cruisers. T3C biggest flavors are covops and nullified systems. If tank and dps will be hitted hard no point of using them. Swiss army knife is bull****. Rigs determine role. This is a min-max community. Nobody will use T3Cs. Read the rorqual nerf thread. No waterpool big enough to gather all that tears. Same is said every time CCP finally deals with an overpowered ship.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 733	Posted - 2017.03.27 05:21:15 - [328] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Most of the community is all about raw power, because they are all about warfare. But solo and small groups who run PVE in dangerous space LOVE Swiss Army Knife ships, if they know what's good for them. I'd link my Swiss Army Myrmidon lossmail, but I can't find it. That's exactly why swiss army knife won't be used again. Raw power. No point of using T3 when other cruisers will be better at given tasks. "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 05:46:00 - [329] - Quote 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. 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."
Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 2947	Posted - 2017.03.27 05:56:10 - [330] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Reaver Glitterstim, good stuff I know all that but it is good to post it for others. One of the thing I did was just go to an out of the way unused system in a T3C, that was before mobile depots by the way, so was not re-fitting, had to use two to get enough DPS for belt ratting, that is how gimped they are. Anyway they add something different to the game which certain large alliances do not like, I did not say your alliance is one of them, It was possible even back then for strategic cruisers to refit inside enemy borders, provided you found a good spot. In your case you didn't have the best spot. And I'm having trouble understanding how you didn't have enough DPS for belt ratting, as you should have been able to get more DPS than a destroyer. With a proper combat subsystem and without weapon upgrades, you should have had over 400 DPS. Provided you were hitting the right kind of rats, you should have been easily able to break the battleship rats' tank. If your skills were too weak, then you might have been better served flying a cheaper ship in a less dangerous place. My alliance is probably the first to dislike any change that hurts big nullsec alliances. We'll cope, but we'll grumble about it. Goonswarm will laugh, and Pandemic Legion will plot to take advantage of it. I assure you that Baltec1 is not trying to support changes to improve his own killboard stats. With stats like these, maybe he is suggesting this for his own benefit, as in it's a change that will make PVP less easy and thus more fun. You do know that you could not refit sub systems from a POS at that point? Sometimes people surprise me. Well to kill a BS in a belt you need at least 225 DPS, the Legion was especially bad when fit for covert and nullification, nothing to do with skills. Again saying use a cheaper ship, I would not have been able to get to those locations in a cheaper ship, which was the point. This change does not hurt big nullsec alliances in any meaningful way, in fact it is a benefit to them due to making it more difficult for people to get hot droppers in. But the negative for solo and small groups is all around the logistics, big alliances and the one I am in now don't care, because they have citadels which they can jump their JF's to and they are totally safe, I would like to see a solo or small group create a network of Astrahus like Test has. And that is the issue, solo players were heavily impacted by the nerf to carrier range and JF range even though it was a benefit in other ways, many adjusted and used BR's and DST's with T3C scouts going via WH space, however the issue was getting to the WH in the first place, sometimes one could not find a WH, to be blunt it is not so much the BR that I have an issue with but the DST. The option for this would be black ops bridges for the BR to get around pipe campers, which needs at least three accounts... When I refer to baltec1 and his easy kill requirement it is based around his love of AFK cloaky camping as the only way to get around local as he puts it, he seems to think that intel channels make it impossible to get kills with local, stranegely I see lots of kills happening even with local and I don't see a reason for AFK cloaky camping. I would hope that you would agree that it is possible to get on people with interceptors if people are inattentive, the thing is that he wants it so attentive people can get caught, which is why I said that. I would suggest taht you don't reply top that part as it would derail this discussion. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin

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.

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 59	Posted - 2017.05.19 20:48:15 - [361] - Quote In my opinion interceptors (as they are currently MWD-based) should have protection from AoE interdiction. T3Cs: naturally. Blockade runners: not really, the already have cloak and covert cyno. DSTs could be nullified though. Yachts: of course. Kythren wrote: Maybe start by gate rats shooting anchored bubbles. As others have noted you could add a timer that requires players do to maintenance on anchored bubbles. For example every 6 hours bubbles power down and need to be onlined again. Maybe require a small amount of t2/3 PI materials to run. I like the idea of an anchored bubble that needs regular interaction. Make it be able to hold enough fuel for 4-6 hours only. And here is my controversial idea for the day: what about a low-slot module that gives you nullification for the cost of 15-20% of your powergrid? You can't have many other defensive or offensive modules, but at least you are safe from bubbles. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BiBaBumm State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.05.23 09:07:37 - [362] - Quote Zanthar Eos wrote: Remove nullification from interceptors, leave it for t3s. Allow non combat ships to be nullified. Add a 24 hour life to bubbles. The other way round.
Xair Nuitarius BAND of MAGNUS CeskoSlovenska Aliance 11	Posted - 2017.05.29 13:18:23 - [363] - Quote Hmm i think it will be nice to have more ships that have nullification. Like covert-ops ships. All ships that are supposed to be exploration: T3C, covert ops frigs, astero and stratios should have nullification too. They should be sneaky and specialized to sneak in hostile territories. It's rly fun when you want jump lat say 50 systems, lot of time you must slow boat tenths of km in cloak, cause there is anchored bubbles. It ruins exploration. Nullification in interceptors is ok. They are supposed to catch and slow down prey.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 62	Posted - 2017.05.30 04:02:01 - [364] - Quote Xair Nuitarius wrote: All ships that are supposed to be exploration: T3C, covert ops frigs, astero and stratios should have nullification too. They should be sneaky and specialized to sneak in hostile territories. It's rly fun when you want jump lat say 50 systems, lot of time you must slow boat tenths of km in cloak, cause there is anchored bubbles. It ruins exploration. Wouldn't this make them OP? The bombers and the Stratios especially? Also, poor Nestor is left out of the fun again :( If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Kassimila Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2017.05.31 18:15:21 - [365] - Quote I think nullification should make you immune to anchored and dictor bubbles. However nothing should be immune to hictor bubbles. Gives you a reason to bring the 600mil ship, instead of the faster 90mil ship that does the same thing.
Kassimila Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 39	Posted - 2017.05.31 18:16:39 - [366] - Quote Xair Nuitarius wrote: Hmm i think it will be nice to have more ships that have nullification. Like covert-ops ships. All ships that are supposed to be exploration: T3C, covert ops frigs, astero and stratios should have nullification too. They should be sneaky and specialized to sneak in hostile territories. It's rly fun when you want jump lat say 50 systems, lot of time you must slow boat tenths of km in cloak, cause there is anchored bubbles. It ruins exploration. Nullification in interceptors is ok. They are supposed to catch and slow down prey. You misspelled "Be able to fly around null sec being nearly un-catchable."
Old Pervert Perkone Caldari State 109	Posted - 2017.06.08 20:25:36 - [367] - Quote Kassimila wrote: [quote=Xair Nuitarius] You misspelled "Be able to fly around null sec being nearly un-catchable." Cepters can get smartbombed all too easily. That said, I'd love for hictor bubbles to stop nullified ships. I agree with you there's very little point in hictors most of the time when a dictor will do the same thing faster and at lower cost. It'd take the wind out of a T3C blops scout's sails in no time.
Kassimila Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 66	Posted - 2017.06.08 21:02:23 - [368] - Quote Old Pervert wrote: Kassimila wrote: [quote=Xair Nuitarius] You misspelled "Be able to fly around null sec being nearly un-catchable." Cepters can get smartbombed all too easily. That said, I'd love for hictor bubbles to stop nullified ships. I agree with you there's very little point in hictors most of the time when a dictor will do the same thing faster and at lower cost. It'd take the wind out of a T3C blops scout's sails in no time. Yeah that is the solution here. Make hictor bubbles > interdiction nullification. So nullification only works on anchored and dictor bubbles. As for the smartbombs. If you're not derp ,and you use pings you can't be smartbombed. The ONLY way to stop a ceptor from getting through your gate camp is lock time < 1 second, and getting REALLY lucky on a server tick.
grgjegb gergerg School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 50	Posted - 2017.06.10 16:11:23 - [369] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Afternoon folks, I'm looking to spark some discussion on a topic, to gauge player reactions across a wide variety of play styles. There's been some discussion within the CSM on whether nullification on combat ships is a good or bad thing. This included talking about anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. So, if you can post on those topics here, (or by mail, or on the reddit thread I'll be creating from this, if you think that the eve forums are less than good for such discussions) I'd appreciate it. I've heard some strong feelings on all the sides of the argument, but they tend to be from a fairly limited subset of people, rather than a broader consensus. 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? Thanks (If you dont have a specific thought to add to the matter, throwing a like onto a post which expresses what you think is a good idea. Just to keep things from getting cluttered with 'me too' posts) How about if anchored deployables slowly lose hull structure (for the same amount of deployed time), but only explode when hull runs out? Perhaps something that keeps their EHP the same, I'm not looking to make them easier to kill, though. This way, if your bubbles are running out, you can use remote HULL repairers to extend the time. And that opens a whole new can of worms, too! Bonused hull repair ships (ORE stuff?) Having to bring/fit/use one of the most arguably pointless modules to camp gates. OR: Just have remote hull reppers extend bubble time, without touching any of their hitpoints. That actually sounds better, now that I think about it.
Lamajagarn McMyra No Vacancies No Vacancies. 23	Posted - 2017.06.16 02:06:52 - [370] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Afternoon folks, I'm looking to spark some discussion on a topic, to gauge player reactions across a wide variety of play styles. There's been some discussion within the CSM on whether nullification on combat ships is a good or bad thing. This included talking about anchorable bubbles, and if they should have an expiry time, to prevent gates being long term locked down, without a player presence. So, if you can post on those topics here, (or by mail, or on the reddit thread I'll be creating from this, if you think that the eve forums are less than good for such discussions) I'd appreciate it. I've heard some strong feelings on all the sides of the argument, but they tend to be from a fairly limited subset of people, rather than a broader consensus. 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? Thanks (If you dont have a specific thought to add to the matter, throwing a like onto a post which expresses what you think is a good idea. Just to keep things from getting cluttered with 'me too' posts) I do believe there is a place for them, they must however be balanced to not be uncatchable. Preferably a internulli ship should not be able to have an align time of t<5 seconds. Providing they use the mjd-cloak trick that gives a window of oppertunity for catching and decloaking of like 1-3 sec, still really hard but somewhat possible. As for the anchorable bubbles i belive they hold a place as well. another one (albeit smaller) with decloaking abilities inside the bubble field would be nice to!

BiBaBumm State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.06.16 07:42:18 - [371] - Quote I see it a little bit different. A nullified ship should always be a paper plane. AA slow aligning ship is dead on gates and you need ships for recon jobs. These ships can call big friends, but should not be able to do much damage alone. Aligntime > 3 sec = KIA
Lelob Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 250	Posted - 2017.06.26 08:55:15 - [372] - Quote Quote: Should you be able to have nullified combat ships? Why, or why not? No. Nullified anything makes nullsec just like lowsec. The whole point of nullsec is that players control the space out there and they can prevent people from moving around in their space. How do they accomplish that? Bubbles. Inties especially are absolutely absurd being able to completely dodge any camp that doesn't have someone with a good ping/insta locker. It makes nullsec owned space feel fairly worthless if you cannot even control access into/out of it. Quote: How about non-combat ships? Shuttles? Blockade runners? Yachts? HELL NO. Remove all nullification from non-combat ships. It's ban enough when it's on combat ships, but if someone hostile is in your space, and they've got a bubble up, it should mean you have to go through it. Frankly though, nullification should be removed from all ships with the possible exception of AT ships. Losing a single slot on a t3 for a nullifier is hardly a trade-off anyone is going to bat an eye about and if people really hate their shuttles getting caught in bubbles, than they don't belong in nullsec/ they should ship up with some friends and blow them up. Quote: Should anchorable bubbles exist? Should they decay if they exist? Yes and yes. Make the decay 2-3 hours minimum and 10-12 hrs max. Ideally small bubbles decay quicker than large bubbles, and same deal goes for t1 vs t2 bubbles.
Ghazbaran Porterhausen Industries Demonic Wheat Pineapple 9	Posted - 2017.06.30 10:04:47 - [373] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Afternoon folks, 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? Nullified combat ships shouldn't exist. They are too strong for scouting. There is currently no downside to using an interceptor for scouting when going on a hunt. They are nearly uncachable as they were before interdiction nullification came around. Shuttles seem like a good option for being nullified, but make them T2. I feel like travelceptors are what T2 shuttles should look like right now. Nullification should strictly be for getting around New Eden. Anchorable bubbles should always exist. No decay, but yes to thievery. "Some type of entosis?" (<- not my idea but thought it was amazing) We already have a "HACKING" minigame so... I would love to see that applied to other things that are not exploration. More gameplay options and


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [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.