Edit: personal feelings aside, suggestion has been made to only extend this to Blockade Runners as "an ode to their ability to haul places that aren’t accessible to other boats"
Mass Entaglers on Haulers
This does not include Bowhead or freighters, however I am open to it if they receive necessary high slots. The Orca is not considered a hauler for this proposal.
This is a new high slot module (currently exclusive to use on HICs) that reduces ship mass. Expanding the module to haulers would likely reduce the need for rolling HICs as Sigils would be far more cost efficient (the rolling sigil is currently a perk that null blocks can take better with ability to medical clone return). With only two high slots, haulers wouldn’t be able to achieve the same level of mass reduction as a rolling HIC, but that would be the trade off in hull price of the HIC vs rolling hauler.
The Logistics Elephant in the Room
Yes, letting haulers reduce thier mass before entering wormholes would allow players to preserve hole mass longer and seed structures into holes that normally don’t allow the mass of a hauler to pass through.
My thoughts on that are essentially: More wormhole hauling activity = more opportunities for bubble ganks and structure bashing
tl;dr: Please throw wormholers a bone and let haulers fit mass entaglers in high slots
CCP has said things and changed their mind on a lot of things. Now they are under a new parent company. Who really knows what direction they’ll ultimately go with mechanic changes.
Extending hauling logistics capabilities into wormholes increases occupancy, thus more stockpiled goods in structures, and more opportunities for staging bashes/evictions to pop those structure pinatas without the scourge of asset safety and local chat.
Wormholes need more pilots to brave the space with hauling ships.
Does it really? I did have someone suggest limiting it to blockade runners (“as ode to their ability to haul places that aren’t accessible to other boats”)
the fact that you don’t even understand how this breaks the hauler is beyond reproach.
this would basically let you bridge them 8ly with 0 cost
omg it gets worse. hauling is already easy and plentifully done in WH space DSTs are the go to ship and it has far more to do with their m3 than their mass.
you would never use this as a null block because it would just make rolling slower and there is no risk of being stuck on the wring side. are you just trolling or do you somehow really think you should post on subjects you have almost no knowledge about
I see throwaway Sigils all the time used as closers from null. Slap on a 100mn compact afterburner, Higgs, and all mark 1 compact reactor control units in the lows. Can put 122 mil tonnes of hot mass on a hole. Only costs 3.2m ISK.
Now this is napkin math so I’ll admit it might not be entirely accurate but 70 units of isotopes compared to 700 units of isotopes per light year is around 60,000 isk compared to 600,000 isk or 480,000 compared to 4,800,000 in the case of 8LY. If that amount is game breaking for a pilot they probably need to do some more HS mining so they can cover the replacement cost of their 3 billion isk battleship before they start bridging things. #nopoors#BLingOPS
In terms of mass the module drops the blockade runner from a cruiser to a covops capable frigate’s mass. There is no way to make the fuel cost zero because you cannot make your mass zero (especially with only two high slots, one of which is prioritized to a cloak).
Fuel cost is a negligible factor here for Blops haulers here. As Mr. Wareson points out, billions of bridging assets are required.
If it really is game breaking, which it is not, preventing a ship from taking bridge while the module is active is pretty straightforward.
You yould never use this module for rolling holes as a null block as there is 0 reason to.
10x cheaper yeah there is no problem in that also its not about the isk cost but once again we have someone who does not understand the aspects of the game they are commenting on. The more haulers I can bridge on a single tank the further my range is pushed with my fleet. no one is worried about the isk here.
you should never touch a blops if your bridge is somehow being put in harms way. 99.99% of the time you shouldn’t even be bringing a blops let alone the one you have fit for bridging.
the uninformed preaching the uninformed I love it.
oh yeah this makes sense. lets put not only a restriction on it that is unique to this needless module and that has no in game logic behind it.
here we have a mod that lets you pointlessly lower your mass so that we can counter intuitively promote WH logistics on a ship few use for that role BUT you can’t use it on this particular type of WH.
bottom line is there is NO need for this in any way shape or form. it will not help wh logistics as you can already fit more than enough DSTs even into a C1 hole and only a fool with spare time would use this to roll a hole in NS. while at the same time become a massive buff to lblops groups with spare alts.
Of course null blocks won’t use this module when closing; this is for wormholers. Please re-read the original proposal. They were intended to bring parity whereby everyone can use closing roller sigils more safely.
Null occupants can med clone back if rolled out.
Wormhole occupants can manipulate mass on sigils to mitigate risk of being rolled out.
3 times total I have rolled myself out even using a full bubble hic. with this idea the chance of that happening goes up. the risk is still low but its higher.
Yes, that risk goes up a little. However, a sigil hull is much less ISK to risk if a player finds themselves on the wrong side and wants to scuttle. Null groups enjoy that slightly higher risk of being rolled out in a sigil without having to commit to a HIC hull. That’s the safety imbalance.
getting rolled out is a lot worse than the hull you are in considering 98% of the time you don’t even lose the hic
and the majority of that 2% accounts for people who willingly SD rather than fly it back
Yes, if a wormholer wants to min/max with a rolling HIC they can still do that. I want to present another option that is cheaper, still slightly risky, and in parity will null blocks tool kit of hole closers.
