This was my main argument, but CCP wanted to go in a different direction.
This is cute, but I’ve been advocating these changes for years now - back when the folks who wanted to hate on these changes were arguing I was just trying to protect the krabs.
DING! DING! DING! We Have A WINNER!!
The best I can really say about the proposed updates is that it encouraged me to get out to M2-XFE to see the new monument there (great job with that, as always, art team! It’s gorgeous) before these changes hit. I don’t really speak up on balancing stuff (I am not a theorycrafter; I recognize my limits in this game lol) but wow is this a change, and not a particularly good one for those like myself who just want the ability to scoot around null sec without needing a WH navigation chart or having to actually fight to escape.
I have no doubt that people have expressed similar thoughts much more (and less) eloquently than myself, so I’ll keep this brief: I can live with the WCS changes (there are other ways around getting pointed; admittedly I don’t use these myself), but I do beg you to re-examine the nullification changes. Even at max skills, those are some rough cooldowns, particularly when you don’t necessarily know if a drag bubble is going to be up. I get that you’re trying to rebalance things (and also that I’m biased in this!) but this seems a step too far in favor of the aggressors. The ability to activate under gate cloak is welcome, but I fear not enough.
But I suspect these changes will be happening anyway regardless of this particular space photographer (though I still beg you to reconsider us poor nonfighters!), so I would like some clarification (if its been answered elsewhere, sorry, I’m not wading through 450 posts heh): 1) This module won’t deactivate during warp, right? See above re: drag bubbles. 2) How is this module intended to interact with regular cloaking devices? Will I have to a dumb trick similar to MWD where I quickly activate/deactivate the new mod and then pop the cloak?
As I said, can’t say I love these changes and I think they go too far in favor of attackers/people actually looking for fights rather than to get away from them, but I recognize is probably going to happen regardless, heh. I’ve been around long enough.
Why would you screw around with Warp Core Stabilizers (WCS) ???
Is this just another SUPER NERF and yet another way to cause more ship losses ?
Keep this crap up and all your customers who are Hi Sec Care Bears will leave Eve.
Also, shall I just scrap all my interceptors ?
PLEASE STOP MESSING WITH GAME PLAY !
BALANCING MY ASS … All this is yet another thin disguise to increase your profits
CCP, you JUST dropped giant changes into the industrial base. Why don’t you focus on ensuring those changes are “working”, before you go messing with other parts of the game?
I agree. The gatekeepers (alliances) have too much say in these things. It’s asking power and wealth what they want, and then getting the answer “more power and wealth” in return. Null needs to be opened up.
So I’d like to start off by saying I’m not really a fan of the changes as currently described.
I think warp core-stabs as an active module is probably fine, but ADDING extra penalties to it is kinda poor design, especially since you’re already going to be limiting it to 1/ship.
Nullification as an active module also results in problems that others have noted (namely the difficulty in escaping gates that are bubbled on both sides), though I like the idea of it being available, though poorly, to other ship types.
Honestly though, my biggest problem atm is with Strategic Cruisers. The nullification subsystem already penalizes the ship/fit quite a bit in exchange for it’s nullification (reduced target range, increased sig, reduced slot count by 1, poor inertia, etc). But now it no longer provides a direct benefit, and needs another module that has additional penalties in order to function?
I mean, not only does it now take ANOTHER slot (a total of -2), it doubles down on the range penalty, makes scan res worse, and while it doesn’t show up in the post atm, it appears on Sisi that Nullifiers also reduce drone bandwidth too!? The penalties were already very noticeable for nullified t3s, but now they’re just ridiculous. The penalties are greatly increased, and the nullification benefits are reduced too!
What’s even the point?
no, no, you’re doing it wrong. April fools day was LAST month.
this seems like a really dumb idea as a fix to nothing that fixes nothing while making certain things more tedious for, again, no reason?
It’s true, Brisc’s been arguing against nullified combat-capable ships for a while now, and he’s very internally consistent about it. Also, he’s in The Initiative. His alliance’s strategy in this war has been ‘oh, the bads are attacking us? LET’S GO BURN DOWN THEIR BACKFIELDS!!!’
Pssst. The new modules mean that fitting 1 of them makes it so the tacklers need either 4 points or 2 scrams, instead of just point/scram. Put one on a Venture, even dual scram can’t catch you.
I understand the basic idea, but doesnt it basicly nerf some ships combat capability?
Interceptor’s will basicly either loose nullification, or loose a low slot. And loosing a low slot is a big deal, specially on a armor one like malediction… you would loose a lot of speed or a tank bit removing 1 module.
I get making something more ‘‘active’’ , but it would be nice to have something that resemble a T3d ‘‘mode’’ with a cooldown instead, because loosing a low slot is a huge nerf to interceptor.
On the other hand, giving T1 frig, faction frig and covops/bomber the ability to fit it, well its straight up just a kind of buff that you can either use, or not.
they were supposed to remove the cargohold though…
When Battleship escape bays were introduced, interceptors appear to have been disallowed from being placed in the escape bay as an easy way to save an expensive pod if the battleship was being bubbled.
With the current data on SISI, all T1 Frigates and select faction and pirate frigates can use this nullification module. The Astero is an extreme case of a ship that can both cloak and sub 2s align; however other T1 Frigates can instawarp too.
Please consider adding a ‘tag’ to disallow placing a frigate in an escape bay if it has a nullifier module equipped.
Only 1 Warp Core Stab at a time makes them useless. The design is otherwise good IMO, but Stabz need to be stackable. that would also allow you to not activate all of them at once and be able to use more than one in a 150 second time span.
I really like the idea someone else on here had of nullifying the interdictor itself. This cooldown is going to be fairly useless. All they need to do is camp two sides of a gate. If you made a one shot nullification of an interdictor for like 60 seconds, you add in teamwork and some need for new strategies on both sides. Yeah, we would lose the ability to skip the bubble for the first ship, but you could do blockade breaks with some teamwork. Force it to only be on small ships like destroyers and below. The small ship requirement would guarantee it’s not permanent after the pirates kill what is disrupting their bubble. Give things like interceptors and yachts something else to compensate like full break of all scrams no matter the strength with these new cooldowns.
Huge Nurf to Industrials and a double gyt punch to mining ships - Warp core stabs are a staple but using one after this removes the ability to have drones on your barge.
Removing a passive feature of certain hulls should result in an additional low slot on those hulls.
As an explorer please don’t break T3’s as they aren’t broken. Further blockade runners … just the name, they should always have been nullified.
The module changes and additions are just…a huge mistake. Why are we further incentivizing and rewarding gatecamping? It’s a boring way to PvP and deters players from actually traveling and exploring systems in the game. This also adds a whole slew of new questions that have no dev answers currently and none of which will be given to players in a way that lets them understand how the hell these nullifying modules function in practice.
As a new-ish player this is exactly my though. Concord is already ■■■■ enough
