- The ‘Restrained’ version attributes are all identical to the basic T1 version ??? *
Overall I like it, with transport ships being fit-able to actually fit their description and do what they’re supposed to be able to do!
You realize they don’t understand their own game, right? These changes come from constant bitching by players. I will say adding nullification to other ships will allow for some interesting things to happen, but knowing CCP it won’t be implemented well.
Do you need to activate the mod before activating warp?
Does it only check then or does it need to be active the whole time? + a host of other questions
WCS going active doesn’t harm anyone but players. Bots already warp away with superhuman reflexes, they don’t need stabs.
People complaining about not being able to catch ships forget that the whole idea you can align and warp anytime is the main issue.
Detach alignment from warp activation, if you want to warp you gotta charge it up as if from stationary. Might need to rework times for capital ships to compensate for this change, at least the combat ones.
Want to get into warp faster with that change? Make a mod f or it
This is dumb you all keep changing stuff to make the game harder for people which makes one group happy but makes other groups misserable. Good job. I spend alot of money on eve and with the constant stupid ass changes you all keep making. Im seriously contemplating finding a new game to play thanks CCP
4 Likes
Forgetting the role of ceptors when they came up with this implementation idea is not a small insignificant thing that does not automatically jump to your mind. It’s the basic role of this ship to be able to get to places, tackle stuff for a fleet and maybe live long enough until the fleet arrives. Not being able to get to places to tackle stuff is pointless. There’s nothing about expecting them to be all-knowing, this is basic knowledge that they themselves put in the game and in the role bonuses of the ship.
4 Likes
This change is bad and you should feel bad
2 Likes
Don’t care about wcs’s - were it ever useful somewhere? There are very few and rare occasions when that kinda could be useful - PI in lowsecs for example.
But change to nullification is simply stupid.
Explain:
- Active module requires uncloaking from a gate cloak to use it(didn’t tested it on sisi now - if it’s not, nwm my comment)
- Insta locking camp that is sitting around a gate bubble happily delivers your remainings to a nerby clonning facility.
- ???
- Profit!
CCP WTF?
2 Likes
Less of a need for having probes fit if you use a scanner alts or (before CCP changes this) just put Pochven filaments in your cargohold if you get trapped in a wormhole.
The only change I would make is that anchorable bubbles cannot touch a star gate, this counters the problem of ratters keeping their space safe by bubbling the gate. They will have to be smart and setup drags.
Good scouts are able to use pings to bypass these anyways allowing hunters to still do their business with a bit more effort.
1 Like
The stealth edits without an update log are confusing.
I see T1/Faction Frigates and Stealth Bombers are now listed above.
However, all your T1 Industrials haven’t been added to the OP and are included/present on SiSi.
1 Like
Except that’s not really what’s being overlooked. What’s being overlooked is ‘you’re making this a module, you need to give us the slot and fitting space to put it in’. The role of the ship isn’t being overlooked, the ‘derp, guys, we need someplace to put this’ is. And that’s arguably even dumber… but human beings are, by and large, stupid.
1 Like
Thank you so much
WCS change is ok, but the nullification one as a whole is sumed up by this chap:
“Phase 5 of scarcity: we’re iterating on scarcity by making GOOD balance changes more scarce!”
— /u/DanilaIce
4 Likes
Let the inty’s keep the passive nullification(maybe a rig that allows them to keep it?), everything else is just fine
It is great that CCP is trying to make some changes, but this one is going wrong direction. We do not need to make bubbles and gatecamps stronger, we need to help people get arround and pick a fight even with small fleet.
1 Like
After a significant nerf to industry and isk production, another nerf is never going to help the game. People need content and content, nowadays, is expensive.
6 Likes
A few thoughts about these changes.
As much as i am all for killing those stabed afk ishtars as a concept and nuking the safety of ceptors (especially ceptors with cloak, who just warp to a spot on grid, cloak up and become an unremovable scout that gets a 100% intel untill he goes afk), and by all means doing something to those covert/nullified long ranged T3Cs who are just farming kills with rather 0 risk, i still have one concern:
how motivated are those changes considering the fact that more people have learned how to takle an instawarp ceptor?
I´ve died to camps with a ceptor that tackled my instawarp ceptor with a mutated scram: such camps will become rather impossible to bypass by solo/small groups.
Although i suppose that this is a balance thing to that abomination called filaments that made it possible to bypass any and all camps.
P. S. RIP old travel ceptors.
This proposed change has actually lured me into making my first post on these forums in over a decade. I’ve read through a great number of the responses and arguments, and I feel like I need to add in my two cents, as I haven’t seen a few of my thoughts from anyone else’s posts.
First off: “nerfing” nullification like this, as many have noted, is stupid. Now, I don’t want to leave it there; as calling something idiotic without suggesting an alternative doesn’t do anyone any good. but the entire approach here is wrong. rather than looking at nullification, and saying ‘well, it benefits xyz too much and we have to stop the niche abuse’, CREATE A COUNTER RATHER THAN RETOOLING SOMETHING INTO A MORE COMPLEX SYSTEM THAT YOUR PLAYERS WON’T ENJOY.
I want to break the issues (that I see) with nullification into two categories:
Taxis and Combat Utility.
-
Taxis
the “problem” here is the claims that taxi ships are 99.99% safe, and eve should not have any form of ‘safe’ travel.
First off, those claims are incorrect. I have lost my instawarp nullified travel ceptors plenty of times. sometimes because of out of game mechanics (like the advantage that UK players sometimes have because of their proximity to the servers, or just general connectivity/lag issues) that CCP has little to no control over. or, occasionally because of instalockers who have taken advantage of niche mechanics to get their ships to point instawarpers without a UK ping, and sometimes by smarbombers. I feel ‘safer’ in a travel ceptor than any other ship when I want to move my pod or a handful of small items around, but I do not feel ‘safe’. certainly not 99.99% safe. however, I would argue that this is a GOOD THING. eve has approximately 7800 systems, and uses exploration as it’s primary “new player lure”. allowing the playerbase to have ONE mostly-safe travel method that allows them to undock and go do some sight seeing is VERY HEALTHY for the game’s future.
Overall, this category should be a moot point anyway, as if taxis are what CCP wanted to nerf, they wouldn’t add nullification to a shuttle that already has <2s align base. these SISI patch notes already hint at a “safe”(ish) taxi option is not the “target” of this change. (though, if thats really the case, why nerf the Yacht too?)
In this context, making the shuttle into the “new” (renewed?) taxi isn’t really going to change much except that they have almost zero tank and die when a smartbomb breathes on them wrong… so yeah, I like my travel ceptors better, but I’ll accept my shuttle fate if I must… but again, if the point of allowing passive nullification to explore is the goal, it would be REAL nice if I could keep my highslot for a cloak that lets me stop an enjoy the view.
That said, -IF- I have read incorrectly into the patch notes, and the real issue is that “taxi ceptors are too good!”, CREATE A NEW COUNTER. Wubbles are a thought in the right direction here, but since you don’t know when the taxi is exiting gate cloak, they’re useless for this purpose. Food for thought: could you allow wubbles to apply to gate-cloaked targets (WITHOUT DECLOAKING THEM)? Could we get an anchorable wubble that creates a ‘slow field’ that might take a 1.98s align travel ceptor and make it a 2.5s align time? We’re not trying to turn every navigation system into a freighter’s brick, but could there be enough of a counter that you might get a point on it now if you’re quick? (and if anything that allows this isn’t SEVERELY stacking penalized, you’re doing it wrong!) now you’re generating content/counters rather than nuking a playstyle. -
Combat utility
This seems to be the actual targeted goal here; the complaints I -have- heard, and that I have had that might apply to nullification is that it is impossible to ‘lock down’ an area you own. (and lets face it here, with all of the income nerfs, controlling your space is the only perk left to Null.) Especially when coupled with cloaks, enemies can infiltrate your home and create issues of psychological warfare and/or hit and run tactics that have very little counter. again, the problem here isn’t the nullification, nor is it the cloaking. the problem is that nullification/cloaking doesn’t have a strong enough counter. the goal here should be to ENCOURAGE content. allowing a null block to “lock down their space” needs to come at the cost of them engaging in content rather than turtling up with impunity, but it also needs to allow them to secure their Sov if they do so. So, what does nullification let in? Hot droppers. and this is where I’m the -most- confused: the proposed changes allow Nullification to be ADDED to all kinds of covert ops options?!? so now that Covert cyno can not only be the method of bringing in unlimited quantities of some of the highest DPS/utility subcapitals in the game, but they can do it without dodging a gatecamp???
No thanks. Bad change. you just ELIMINATED a counter to something that is already a hot topic, and arguably broken already.
What about Scouts? is nullification an unfair advantage there? I’d say no. But again, lets assume for a moment that Scouting interceptors -are- the problem. Scouts could easily be countered the same way as taxis - create more ways to slow someone down -just enough- before they warp off a gate. make the scout choose between warp core stabs and instawarp; give the ‘defender’ a chance to tackle them, while still giving the scout a chance to get away. this proposed change doesn’t add anything of value here. All a fleet has to do to “shake the scout” is have a rear-guard dictor +scram tackler bubble two gates in a row while the fleet burns quickly toward a desto. first gate, scout gets their nullification. second gate, you catch them, or they don’t jump through and you’ve shaken your tail for 75 sec. This aspect might not be a terrible thing, but to get here, How much collateral damage was caused? and for what gain? after all, the GAME ITSELF tracks where your fleet went by giving a search box in your map for how many stargate jumps a system has seen lately! if you want to make scouts work harder, why not cap the drain on free intel?
What about warp-in T3C Warp-in nullified boosters? Again, I’d say no. The coordination required for warp-in boosters to do their thing is very high, and since the modules cycle the way they do, it is predictable. -IF- this is a target to fix, you can either eliminate warp in boosting all together by giving it the ‘burst ECM treatment’ via command bursts removing nullification, or you can provide more options for an enemy fleet to scan down/tackle said boosters. Changing nullification into a module creates far more collateral damage than it is worth.
All in all, I have to ask: What is gained by this change? and what is collateral damage along the way? every way I look at it, more is lost than is added, and when that is the final ‘score’, good development should be to look for ways to ADD ADDITIONAL COUNTERS AND CONTENT rather than removing elements of the game that have become integral. even in other hotly debated topics like the industry chages - the solution that got the -most- support and was finally implemented was to ADD new components to the manufacture of items that were deemed to need a balance adjustment. as far as scarcity goes? the biggest complaint is that TOO MUCH WAS REMOVED! (like, say, entire reigons worth of asteroid belts? which then had to be fire-controlled because, guess what? entire playstyles were altered when (officer) rats stopped having a place to spawn!) why fall into the same mistakes here? We’re currently celebrating 18 years of EVE Online. moving forward should not mean removing content that has been around long enough to be a core element of the game. I’ll say it one more time. if something is broken after this many years, don’t delete it. CREATE A NEW COUNTER TO IT. ADD SOMETHING OF VALUE TO BALANCE IT OUT.
TLDR;
Eve is a game of rock/paper/scissors. if ‘Rock’ is too strong, you don’t remove rock and make the game “paper/scissors”. you just distribute more paper. there is no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are infinite methods of creating new ways to counter something. for the love of bob. ADD NEW COUNTERS rather than deleting playstyles. give your players MORE tools, not less.
(edit: spelling, formatting)
22 Likes
I just came back to the game after taking a break for many years, and found that I really enjoy solo exploration in null with a T3C. The big issue here is with that cooldown, two bubbles in a row, and you’re dead.
There’s already disadvantages to having the nullifier subsystem fitted versus another. I typically switch the subsystem out for something else once I get where I’m going, and I’ve had plenty exciting PvP other players. Even nullified, you are not invincible - you give up align and DPS for the privilege of being unaffected by bubbles. Regular scrams will get you, as will anything that prevents you from cloaking like a jetcan gate camp.
I really don’t want to believe that multiple bubbles meaning death 100% of the time is intended gameplay.
3 Likes
Looks like CCP got cloaking and warp stabs mixed up. The former should be an active on a timer not permanent.
But I guess cloaky camping is better gameplay than travelling around the universe right?
12 Likes
Narrow-minded CCP!
Just remove this modules and you’re done!