I feel like the nullification changes target the broader goals of making the game more active and introducing room for human error which are cool goals in themselves.
But I know other broad goals of yours such as more explosions, more pvp interaction, fostering commitment and introducing risk. And I am surprised about the nullification changes which seem like undermining these goals.
The #1 problematic thing about nullification was commitment-avoidance in PvP uses (aka entosis ceptors, multiboxed ECM ceptors, nullified T3C combat doctrines (Petes etc))). And now you’re not only keeping the old capabilities (except mass multiboxing) intact; but also enabling more PvP ships to be nullified. Even a single use of the module is a major disengage button for PvP fleets.
T1/T2 hauling in industrial ships was arguably not at a spot which needed a risk reduction. Random PI hauler getting caught every now and then was not a bad thing, and now it’ll be less likely. Same with the exploration frigates (now even with increased rewards).
You are discouraging explosions by nerfing tackle interceptors, which are essential parts of small gang fleets.
You are discouraging explosions by nerfing nullified tackle T3Cs, which already had balanced fitting trade offs in order to be nullified.
In exchange, we get;
Safer covert cyno movement; but this wasn’t needed anyway.
Way harder mass multiboxed ECM ceptors, which is arguably a good change.
Nullified shuttles, which is arguably a good change.
To keep the benefits and weed out the issues created by this patch, I suggest following modifications;
No new ship classes should get active or passive nullification, except shuttles (passive).
Nullification module should reduce damage (potentially up to 100%).
How about any alpha-skilled player who cannot fit a cloak to their T1 industrial? One additional way to “protect” their other-worldly goods would be to instead fit WCS.
As for “youngsters”, who can fit the cloak warp trick, to say a miasmos, they might well be horrified to find that they only get around 5k EHP as a result. This due to the power draw of the MWD. Fitting WCS will not stop a gank, irrespective of their EHP, but it will give a bit of comfort from risk of fat fingers missing a cloak/ warp at a vital gate. And, that may just get them away from opportunists too.
What do the numbers look like for WCS-fitted industrials, in terms of % players? No idea. But, it’s just one suggestion as to why players might fit WCS in HS. Not to mention anyone in their first exploration ships, etc.
So if this goes thru I will no longer be able to play the game, I do small gang pvp and this makes hunters worth nothing. If you dont have a hunter then you have no small gang pvp. This is the worst change to the game ever!! Please do not put this in the game!
If this change goes through, can we also get a hard cap on scan resolution? There should be no reason for anyone to benefit from a 1s lock because of server tick mechanics. The only people who benefit from this are the ones who live closest to the server.
They won’t either.
Because as balance stands now, mining ships are instant pop, WCS won’t help, and nothing else but unimaginable stupidity and laziness of ganktards will.
I’m puzzled as well, why this obvious measure is not picked up. Because it’s the one catch solution for the remaining nullification issues (including stabbed smartbomb ships). The only reason I can think of is, it’s too much effort to code … but on the other hand there are boosters doing a flat DPS increase. So it’s already possible.
It is now a reactionary system since you can turn bubble immunity on and off. Hence it should check all the time if you are bubble immune or else the system is unintuitive.
Nah, they just don’t know how to turn it off. If it was deliberate, they should not write this line in the first post.
As far as i see the problem was(still?) with nullification is not that it can ignore bubbles but it that will ignore bubles no matter what,
on the flipside bubbles stop ships from warping 100%, this has 1 and only 1 counter (witch has no other purpose/use)
same with wcs-s, either one ignores scrams completely or perfectly unable to warp, nothing inbetween
and again: wcs-s are only good for this nothing else
im all for rebalancing these, however none of these changes adress the absolute/binary nature of these mechanics
what i would like to see, imo would help with current issues, wont disregard pilot skill:
nullified ships are still affected by bubbles to an extent(at wery least inconvinience). Align time/time to warp increase?
there is still a chance to escape as non-nullified from a bubble. not sure how, after a certan time has passed?
stabbed ships can be pointed to an extent. Only for a short time lets say?(no, “bring more scrams” isnt a solution)
there are currently ways to escape a point without stabs (ecm-drones, neuts, pulling range), there effectiveness are arguable. But still, good
EDIT HERE due to slow mode
just realised: the reason the last situation (escaping point) has other solutions is that its tied to an already existing mechanic
namely: pointing requires targetlock and cap, how we tie all the other problematic ones to other mechanics as well?
(for ex.: time delay, align time, bubbles-add-scram, warpspeed)
Absolute ■■■■■■■■. Another (unwarranted) change seemingly solicited by bloc representatives that makes the game unnecessarily more convoluted to navigate, and safer for botters and null-sec blocs to carry on with their usual M.O…
Because when the thread was created they didn’t expect it to explode, hence why that line was written, its now since changed due to this exploding, i mean you’re an EVE player, is common sense that hard?
I don’t expect it to be take out of slow mode for a while
