Currently warp disruption fields disrupt warp vectors when the center of the warp disruption field is within 400km of the object that warp was initiated to.
This post is to discuss and propose that the 500km limit is changed or removed entirely.
This thread is to compile ideas related to this potential change.
Then people can gate camp from inside their cozy invulnerable citadels, which are already conveniently located behind the gates throughout most of nullsec.
When CCP expanded the grid size, they had anything on grid affected by the bubble. They had to change it because people were using drag bubbles to gank people using the citadel guns.
I donāt know about a ātweakā - but the change you seem to be advocating for is to have X-Large bubbles - or to change the 400 km limit to some other arbitrary number.
Iām not advocating here for x-large bubbles, but rather a change to beyond 400km, although I do think the point youāve raised is an important one, and would have to be addressed. Thatās why Iām asking about any potential additional changes that would eliminate the possibility of citadel drag or catch bubble camping.
The reason for the change would be the capacity to use warp disruption fields to have a greater impact on on-grid warping and positioning. This is typically relied upon by fleet who have a significant mobility and range advantage. A potential effect of such a change would be to re-balance fleet fights towards less mobile/more ābrawlyā doctrines. Ultimately, this post is meant to spur discussion of that.
Are you suggesting that warp bubbles drag and stop everyoneās warp, regardless of their distance from it?
For example, I warp 150km from my to a fleetmate on grid, but because thereās a bubble 60 AU away from me, perfectly in line, I get dragged all the way out to 60 AU?
No, that would certainly be a very interesting idea however, although Iām not sure how it would work in terms of capacitor/warp mechanics. In the suggestion, the current warp disruption field mechanics would still operate but rather the drag and catch distances would be altered to a value beyond 400km as they currently are.
Look, thereās really no possible discussion that can be done here if youāre not willing to provide detailed responses. If you leave it as a vague āsome valueā, then discussions will take place with different people assuming different values, causing more confusion.
You seem to be asking other people to come up with ideas around a mechanic, but havenāt stated what you consider the problem to be or how you would approach it. I recommend updating the OP with both of those points as a ākickoffā of the discussion - the way you have it now, there really isnāt anything to discuss.
Thereās plenty of discussion that might be had around the warp disruption field effect distance. A very valid point has been raised already regarding the interaction of citadel anchoring distance from gates and warp disruption field effect distance.
Thatās a valid point. Iāll type it up when I have a bit more time to dedicate, what I consider an issue, and the approach more specifically. That being said, I would love it if people would come up with interesting ideas around the mechanic given the lack of a specific suggestion.
Bubbles will halt warp and force ships to land at the edge of the bubble if their warp vector is within some distance X of the bubble.
Citadels will can be used to shoot at any ships within a distance Y from the citadel.
Citadels must be anchored at or beyond distance Z from warp-able celestials (stargates, stations, etc.)
CCP currently have X, Y, and Z adjusted such that if you have a bubble set to impact ships warping to a celestial, you canāt also have the ships land in the firing range of a citadel. This is by design. If you change any one of them, you have to make sure that all three are changed accordingly to maintain this relationship.
Soā¦with all of that said, why exactly do you want to change the drag bubble limit? Itās true that CCP is looking at some possible new bubble mechanics, but thereās no indication that they want to change the relationship I described.