That’s… bad. The module going offline as soon as you entered warp was good. It allowed the cooldown to start. Unless you’re warping around on-grid, you won’t get a second activation out of it.
They already were, it just wasn’t in the OP.
2 Likes
My question is more like, why add nullification to T1 haulers…
Pinging near the gate and then warp to the gate plus jump are now heavily penalized, as you have to wait 30-40s to warp after jump when you land in a bubble to get your cooldown finished. You want to be in warp/jump tunnel for the cooldown to reduce the travel speed penalty. The geometry of systems now decides whether ratters are safe or not.
Update the original post to reflect the removal of Stealth Bombers please
Fleet interceptors were fine and who ever proposed this change should never be asked their opinion about the game ever again.
8 Likes
Cuz it’s funny?
1 Like
Well maybe the effort to double-bubble gates should be rewarded.
alliances have a station at each gate, and they will wait there.
Why you guys so focused on nullified shuttles? It is a minor change with benefits to null mostly. We not playing shuttles online. They are not solution here to most problems with this feature.
4 Likes
Bearing in mind that I get my kicks from dodging PvP while going about my business, rather than initiating PvP myself, I’m not overly happy but well, that’s life so ok. One thing that bugs me though is the effect on DSTs; currently my Mastodons carry 4 WCS to give +6, meaning I can often escape a small gang. This change means they will get only +4 in total, so I will be prey to any small gang. Any chance of some benefit for DSTs to offset this? The description for DSTs is “Deep space transports are designed with the depths of lawless space in mind”. Not any more then.
5 Likes
Unless the change is “Reverted nullification changes” then no, back to the drawing board
5 Likes
Okay, thank you for this, but it doesn’t go far enough. My issue here is not with the nullification itself (sure having it available more often is nice, but that’s not my issue here).
Also, as a preface, I am talking about ceptors in a hunting/tackling solo/small gang context.
CCP, the scan res penalty, targeting range penalty, and low slot usage of this module are HUGE issues. I know a 10% reduction in targeting range may seem small and reasonable, but it’s not. Ceptors are already very limited on lock range, so much so that everyone I know runs a targeting range rig on their ceptor. Even that 10% reduces targeting range from about 50km to 45km. Again, that might not seem like a very important amount, but it is. It is the difference between locking and immediately pointing a target right at the edge of point range and wasting a second or two to get into lock range then pointing when they are well inside point range. That is crucial time when hunting and in small gang fights that is essential.
Further talking about time, this new change does nothing to address the 50% reduction in scan res. Again, this adds several seconds to the lock time of a ceptor that are crucial to it’s role of tackle. Between the lock range and scan res, those extra 5 seconds are the difference between a target warping away or a friend getting scrammed.
Finally, the module still has an innate penalty because it is a low slot. It means a less tanky or slower ceptor. As it is, ceptors don’t have much tank, and what they do have they pair with speed and sig to tank incoming damage. This module will greatly hurt one, if not both of these things depending on the fit.
Honestly, I am confused by what this module is attempting to solve. If it is taxi ceptors, then congratulations, you haven’t solved a thing. With the now 30s reactivation delay a taxi ceptor can still warp gate to gate nullified. All this module is doing in it’s current form is hurting ceptors who are actually fulfilling their role of tackle. Ceptors that I have never heard anyone complain about.
What about x-wing or dramaqueen ceptor fleets? Well 30s of nullification offered by the t2 module is plenty of time to warp in, blap, and warp out. Honestly, there are so many other ways to solve this issue that have been suggested by the player base already that I would feel like a parrot repeating them.
I understand that you all at CCP have sunk a lot of time into this module. I mean the coding, artwork, everything. But it just isn’t the correct change. It isn’t addressing the actual issues with nullification and hurting the things that weren’t issues. Let’s get serious, this entire concept needs to be reworked.
4 Likes
They REALLY need to pull this and go back to the drawing board, the more I toy with it and find “hilarious” options the worse it gets.
4 Likes
Yes, please go back to the drawing board, better still please pull the plug on this idea. Despite latest modifications the nullifcation module is still an un-necessary and deeply damaging idea.
The nerf’s to scan res and lock range on T3C’s (even though improved from original plan) are deeply damaging.
Edit
Not to mention the damage this will do to scout ceptors.
6 Likes
Still nerfing fleet ceptors, one of the highest skillcap ships… which needed no nerfs. Still buffing shuttles, industrials, t1 frigates, etc… which needed no buffs. Just trash this patch and simply add a damage penalty to WCS. Thank you CCP
Not to add that this patch may lead us to a dumb meta of WCS brawling ships that don’t care so much about the targeting range or drone bandwidth penalty and only need to dedicate a lowslot to disengage at will
Nulli T3C also needed no nerfs either. T3C have already been nerfed plenty and I find them perfectly balanced. Using the nulli sub already means a huge combat penalty by losing a slot and highly decreased speed and agility
All this crap simply discourages skill intensive roaming and hunting… and buffs brainless gatecamping
11 Likes
Are there plans for an override to activate this nullification module while a cloaking module is active?
The gate cloak override appears to work, however for Tech III cruisers it currently appears you have to turn off the covert ops cloak in order to activate the nullifer. Loss of existing functionality for the platform.
1 Like
@CCP_Dopamine
Change the t3c subsytems names from ‘Interdiction nullifier’ to ‘Nullifier Enhancer’ or something.
Or you could wait for the ‘Wrong nullifier?’ meme kills and we could all have a bit of a laugh in the meantime.
5 Likes
And that is very wrong, IMHO. Interdiction nullifier passive subsystem should stay as it is now, or T3 cruisers will lose way too much of role. Nerf is too strong for them …
2 Likes
I have no beef against Ishtar players specifically (I have an Ishtar myself and enjoy flying it.
The issue with the WCS and drone boats is that the WCS are supposed to have severe downsides for fitting them. You can choose to make your turret, missile or laser boat warp core stabilized, but the lower targeting range and longer lock time means there is a tradeoff for that extra safety.
Not for drone boats. Drone boats have barely any downside for fitting warp core stabilizers (except that they miss out on damage modules in the lows), as they don’t rely on targeting enemies as much as the other weapon systems do.
With an additional penalty specifically against drones, the WCS penalties will affect all combat ships more equally.
4 Likes
Ok 
perfect , but WCS are not just used by Ishtar ratters. But for Indies , Explorers and PI like myself
Exploration is already very “active” intensive.
you are Solving the hacking game while you are checking your surroundings, checking d-scan and even some people can probe at the same time.
Now CCP you add another thing ?!!? Press the damn WCS and just allow 1 ,if a cloacky camper is camping the site I now have 0 chance at all, They are not affected at all.
PI epithals can be ganked in the POCO without 0 no defense.
I wond mind to loose 100% the habilitity for fighting , I understand but should be kept as a passive module
1 Like