Pathetic - make it harder and harder for someone to fight against ganks. What is wrong with CCP - only think that Gankers are the only people in your game?
FFS how about helping people who want to do other things instead of always catering to the crying little gankers!
Please consider bonus for scan resolution penalty at least for T3 Cruisers. -50% is a huge nerf.
I don’t recall this idea, but I can tell you from the get go that it’s probably more work than it’s worth. There are so many various playstyles in EVE that trying to narrow them down into a database would be a full time job, and they’re going to change constantly. The idea that you can’t make changes because they may impact negatively a playstyle is a recipe for stagnation, which we don’t want.
Discovered? That’s a very euphemistic way of saying “we are blind and have no idea what is going on until someone tells us the most basic things about or own product”.
Any idea about wether nullification activated in warp or while aligning cancels out a bubble? It would be very unintuitive to land on a bubble edge after you activated the nullifier. CCP can’t have that, right? Not after so much talk about making the game more intuitive for the poor noobies.
The Astero should not be nullifiable in the first place. BR and DST don’t need the second high slot in most cases, most definitely it is not needed for a permanently fitted probe launcher. Quite the contrary, most BR/DST have an unused high slot and all the lows are needed for agility, cargo space and/or tank. These ships should not need to make a choice between agility, defenses, cargohold or nullification. Having the nullification module in the low slot only creates issues for these ships in particular because of the already overburdened slots.
For Ceptors, they would not have to decide between agility, speed or nullification, but between high slot dps or utility and nullification. This suits them much better because these ships are tackle ships and need speed and agility to be able to perform their role.
T3C have lot of utility high slots that they can use for nullification. Instead of trading tank or speed, they trade a neut or a weapon, which is much more sensible than putting an always required module in a slot bar where it will always block other modules from being fitted.
In general I find this idea of creating a must have module quite intriguing. CCP used to say that they do not like hard caps, hard must haves and hard barriers. They made the DCU passive because you had to always activate it anyway, as an example. And now they introduce a must have module that you always have to activate and that adds nothing positive to the game. I wonder what psychologists would make of that.
Oh, and it is now 10 days since this topic was created, @CCP_Dopamine. Did you forget to deactivate something or do you need help finding the option? 
Where you land is calculated when you issue the warp command, its how bubbles have always worked, its not the most intuitive but it means that activating it mid warp won’t actually do anything, so if you want to avoid bubbles you’ll either need a tactical or to bounce via a planet close enough to scan for bubbles, or both 
That is how it has always been because there was only Nullified or Not Nullified. But now you can be not nullified and then become nullified in warp or while aligning. It is not as easy anymore and I think it is worth a thought to reconsider this ancient and soon to be outdated mechanic since CCP just changed how features surrounding this mechanic work. Not my fault that CCP made this process more complicated for no good reason whatsoever.
As for “go to a bounce spot to scan for bubbles”: I remember a time when it was mandatory to have bookmarks on all the gates for better warp in. This apparently put a heavy burden on the server. And now they make it so that you have to have pings on all constellation, region and border gates because those are usually out of dscan range from celestials. It’s one of these things that only CCP can think up.
@CCP_Dopamine This topic is still in Slow Mode, by the way. 3 days overdue, according to your own words in the first post.
It still only checks your nullification status when you issue the warp command, it doesn’t care if you gain or lose it mid warp as the calculation is already done
I mean, it is, you’re either bubble immune when you press warp or you’re not, its not a reactionary tool like a shield hardener, you have to make your choice before you initiate a warp
Those bookmarks still all exist and you can still use them, i doubt the number of bookmarks people actually use on a daily basis has changed, infact after moving to Pochven i find i have a lot more bookmarks per system than i did owing to the fact i need more tacticals
Likely deliberate due to the amount of posts that have been made on the topic, there is a lot more for them to sift through that was likely anticipated
This has nothing to do with interceptors, or bubbles, or nullsec taxis, or or botters.
ALL this is, is ■■■■■■■ over anyone from hisec+ who uses a WCS to escape getting ganked.
That’s ALL it is.
This entire discussion is a diversion, a smokescreen for ensuring 100% certain gank kills.
This is not what I said! It’s about awareness, that if you change something, it might impact certain professions for the good or bad. Then think about whether your change makes more people of the same group happy or angry. A multi angled, balanced view which requires game knowledge.
But even a vision, a communicated goal of changes would be helpful. Like we want to buff gate camps, slow down roaming gangs, but make catching explorers much harder.
Wierd isn’t it ? So bizzare. You and a few others (myself included) have been trying to raise awareness about this and is not even acknowledged?
This is my first experience in the forum and I barely believe it, is not like a huge amount of these veterans already call us already carebaers, just for live in HS.
Making my first ever eve feedback forum post in 10 years to say I strongly disagree with the nullification change to fleet interceptors.
The reasoning has been beaten to death already in this thread but I do want to add a reminder that balance does not always equate to better gameplay. An extreme example you should take with a grain of salt is if we increased session change timer to 5 minutes. It’d be balanced in the sense that it affects all sides and all ships equally, but gameplay is undeniably worse.
The obvious outcome of the nullification change is more regions will have anchored bubbles on gates because it will be the optimal thing to do as a defender. However, this not only makes gameplay cumbersome for roamers, but also for people living in that space to move around their area.
This leads to overall detrimental gameplay for all players in exchange for removal of travel ceptors.
For every change, it’s important to ask does this improve gameplay? With better gameplay comes more content and ultimately more subs. And in my opinion removing travel ceptors at the expense of causing traveling to be more tedious to all sides in an already sparse map, absolutely does not improve gameplay.
yup, I find it amazing that on the one hand: 70% of players never leave hisec, and on the other hand, their money that is presumably worth the same as any nullsec living person, does not entitle them to the same courtesy and respect for their opinions.
Add up every instance of fitting/flying with a WCS.
I demand CCP provide us with figures for how many are fitted in which sec space.
I’ll bet you a billion isk most WCS are fitted, and flown in hi sec.
and if CCP want to prove me wrong, show the figures, I dare you
Therfore this is a change aimed at hisec.
it’s just beginning to bore me, the disregard CCP has for the people who pay their wages, it really is.
I’m tempted to accept your bet. Why would anyone fit WCS in hisec, except maybe miners paranoid about suicide gankers? My transport, exploration and mining ships are often fitted with WCS and while they travel through hisec, they keep them because I can’t be doing with swapping fits all the time. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve in hisec? Certainly not for missions on account of their drawbacks. War of course but war is a fairly small facet of hisec.
A billion then, as long as the count doesn’t include youngsters who think WCSs might be useful.
Let me show you something
And is not like Exploration is a popular AT ALL
Right
And is not like the Astero is not affected at all with these changes
and is not like the most popular build for the astero doesn’t relay in WCS for safety
OH WAIT :…
Some alternatives I think CCP should consider for WCS:
As many other people have posted, being able to fit only 1 WCS with a strength of 3 reduces defender options and attacker uncertainty. Just as there there are several different strengths for point/scram modules, the WCS should come in different strength versions.
I generally support the idea of limiting WCS to one per ship (or equivalent mechanic, see below), but this does remove the low slot vs. WCS strength trade-off. An option to restore that a little bit would be to have a low slot stabilizer reinforcement module, limited to one per ship, which increases the strength of the WCS by 1.
Warp point/scram should have a falloff and lose 1 point of strength for each falloff. This would need to be balanced, but my initial idea would be that optimum + 1 falloff would equal the current range. This adds game play as range for tackle is no longer binary, but variable. It favors the attacker, since maximum tackle range for a ship without WCS would be increased.
To balance the fact that the defending ship is only allowed one WCS, the comparison used to determine if the ship can warp would be the maximum (it is currently the sum) of the tackle module effective strength (i.e. strength modified by falloff if range is greater than optimal) versus the defender’s WCS strength. With the possibility of fractional effective tackle strength that the falloff mechanic introduces, the effective tackle strength would simply need to be greater than the WCS strength to prevent warp. This change is anti-blob, but does favor the defender. The relative price / resources for WCS versus point/scram modules (see below) can be used to balance this out. If the defender has the option of a low slot module (limit 1/ship) to increase WCS by one (proposal 2, above), then the attacker also can fit a mid slot module (limit 1/ship) that increases the strength of all tackle modules by 1.
There would still be a distinction between point and scram modules. Point modules would continue to have longer range and could have longer falloff as well. The strength of the two modules in each tier would be the same. The range of the scram effect on MWD would be optimal + 1 falloff. Ships could still fit both a point and a scram.
For a given strength, the WCS would be more expensive compared to the tackle module with the same strength. At the bling limit, the best tackle module would have a strength 1 greater than the best WCS module. This could be used to balance the fact that only the strongest tackle module counts in a multimodule or multiship tackle.
The funny thing is, that this change affects the pure travel ceptor the least.
Then you will get combat on the first competent gate camp.
I suspect that what you are looking for is ganks.
Ok in my opinion the Fleet Interceptors, Luxury Yachts, and Tech III Propulsion subsystems work as they currently are no need to make these changes.
Adding the modules to the other ship types listed here give a very interesting option when fitting so this would also be positive.
However adding these changes as stated here you will kill off the use of fleet cepters as you are better off in T1 frigs or the or the combat cepter. This will also kill of the bulk of T3 game play options.
I’m an old player, that recently resubbed. I’m not familiar with all current aspects of the game. But, the proposed changes to WCS just reminds me neuts can prevent warp, too.
