Jin’taan: Why the October Changes are great

JintaanEVE 2018-09-22

I want to open this piece by saying “Fuck you, the October changes are great.” Now, before you go and run off into the comment sections and complain about how rude I’m being to the community, I (and CCP and the rest of the CSM) have been expected to wade through far worse this week, so deal with it.

Lurch HICs/WH Rolling

First I want to address the HIC change. A lot of people are proposing suggestions, but they don’t understand how Dogma (the attributes manager behind EVE) works; the ‘simple fixes’ that were suggested as alternate options don’t work. The mass effect being removed was literally the only way to fix the Lurch HIC problem.

  1. Just make it so HICs can’t fit 500mn MWDs.

This is a great one, because it sounds like it would completely solve the problem while still allowing you to use 100mn ABs to roll holes. There’s just one problem with it:

It means you can still Lurch HIC, just with a 100mn AB.

This is something I’ve tested before and I’d intended to go on SiSi and prove it with a video, but the mass changing mechanics of WDFGs have already been removed on the server.

The main thing being abused by Lurch HICs is NOT the 7km/s speed. You don’t need 7km/s speed to decloak a T3C/catch an Orthrus. The thing you are abusing is the instant acceleration provided by the way mass interacts with agility in the background of Dogma; the thrust of your MWD/AB isn’t impacted by the penalty from a WDFG until it recycles. A speed of 3-4 km/s, which is very doable with a full overdrive lowslot + faction AB + heat + links, will still be enough to catch most T3 hunters or nano gangs, since you are INSTANTLY at that speed, whereas your opponent is either cloaked and attempting to warp (while you reach them faster than an interceptor could, due to your instant acceleration) or attempting to kite off while fighting with a vastly lower agility.

Obviously, this opens up the option of just removing 100MN ABs from being fittable to HICs too, but at that point you’re actually getting into the realm of messing with real fits. Should 100MN fleets no longer be able to properly fit HICs into their comps? 100MN fleets certainly aren’t a mainstay in the current meta, but we all know that can shift overnight.

2. Add a velocity penalty to WDFGs.

This is one that ‘sounds’ like it should work: If you just cap the max speed of a ship running the module, it should always stay below that speed, right?

Anyone who has ever been bumped while in triage/siege should know that this is not the case, as max velocity penalties don’t affect momentum, which is what you are abusing with Lurch HICs. In fact, this is how the cloak-MWD trick works. You might have a 90% velocity penalty, but you still carry the ‘momentum’ of your MWD being active. So this second “solution” would do precisely nothing to address the Lurch HiC problem.

3. Make WDFGs scram a HIC when active or make WDFGs disable all prop mods.

This would actually work to prevent Lurch HICs, but as much as CCP has been accused of not understanding WH mechanics, this belies how little some people seem to understand regarding how HICs are used in a non-rolling context. Having a WDFG scram your HIC has a lot of interesting properties. For example, it allows you to prevent yourself from ever being jumped by an MJDFG, or allows you to charge up to a high speed and use the WDFG to cut off the MWD’s sig bloom if you got targeted (giving you insane xversal, temporarily). These are niche ways to abuse the mechanic, but so would Lurch HIC-ing be in other contexts.

Alternatively, making WDFGs disable all props (as was suggested to me on Twitter) effectively kills the ability of HICs to keep up with a fleet with their bubble up, or attempt to sig tank with their bubble up, making them vastly more vulnerable in a fleet context that already makes it hard to pin down your opponents.

With that said, I would like to note that I am not arguing against WHers having this tool—far from it—but the vast majority of people discussing this issue seem to feel as though CCP took the only ‘simple fix’ that would fuck WHs. These same people have the impression that there are other options. That is simply not the case: CCP just tackled the root cause of the problem. HICs can alter their mass at will. In tackling that, CCP reached the cleanest solution to the Lurch HIC problem that prevents further issues from arising.

There were absolutely some problems with how the changes were communicated—the phrasing of “collateral damage” was really something I should have picked up on and I’ll take the blame for that, but the vast majority of people didn’t seem content to wait for a response from CCP that could be thoughtful or measured. The reason a specific fix was not noted in the blog was because the fix was still being discussed internally. Given the players reaction, CCP settled on doing the one thing they were sure they could get done quickly, in order to appease the masses baying for their heads on a pike.

I can absolutely understand WH players not being satisfied with the Soon™, and asking for more details on what changes are coming and when. What I can’t understand is the wave of accusations from the WH community that this change was driven by malice against those living in WHs, or a lack of understanding regarding how these ships were used. More CCPers play in WHs than in any other area of space and CCP rewrote the entirety of both Citadel RF code and Asset Safety for WHs, specifically in order to facilitate the retention of existing PoS-based gameplay. That is not something you do if you don’t care about or don’t know about the WH community.  Encouraging that kind of persecution complex drives CCP and the CSM away from wanting to interact with it.

What’s done is done here, though, and Rise’s post on the matter has effectively settled the issue as far as I’m concerned. However, I won’t pretend that the amount of vitriol aimed squarely at myself (and other members of the CSM) on this topic left a really bad taste in my mouth, especially given that it was already noted and planned to be addressed, as indicated in the dev blog.

If there are bugs/QoL issues in WHs that you feel aren’t being addressed, feel free to contact Exookiz (who graciously offered to be a point of contact for the CSM on WH issues) or myself, as I’m always happy to pass stuff like that on to the appropriate people.

As a final note, I’d like to mention that Lurch HICs are something nullblocs (like I am a part of) typically use to make their space safer, as it is something primarily effective as a catching tool if you’ve already established force asymmetry (i.e a gate camp). I feel like this is worth mentioning, as people often accuse the CSM of only working towards its vested interests, whereas this is a change we advocated for that makes our play style less safe.

The ECM Rework

The ECM rework is one I didn’t expect to see so much backlash against, as ECM is an incredibly binary mechanic that has no real counterplay when you’ve already committed to the grid. If I’m fighting a damping ship, I have the option of attempting to move closer to the damping ship, or lock, and wait a little longer. If I’m fighting a TDing ship, I have the option of trying to transveral match, or get closer to my opponent. If I’m fighting an ECM ship, I overheat my ECCM and pray to RNGesus.

Now, however, ECM effectively works as a taunt, rather than as a ‘prison’ mechanic (to steal a term from M:tG). It forces you to focus your efforts on one particular ship, or be completely useless, but gives you options with which to affect the situation. Equally, it introduces a lot more pilot skill to flying with ECM, not just against it, as positioning and transveral management are going to become huge parts of how you fly an ECM ship. Only being able to lock a Falcon that is at 100KM when your weapons shoot to 40KM is just as effective as old ECM, as long as the Falcon pilot can maintain that distance.

Does this cripple some ships in their current balancing state? Yes. Especially the Griffin Navy and the Widow, which typically relied on locking out their opponent in close range. They were balanced around the old mechanic, which no longer exists, meaning they’re going to be looked at and buffed once CCP is able to understand just what this changes in reality.

There’s been a huge amount of clamoring to just give all ECM ships buffs in order to account for this nerf and that is a fairly reckless thing to do from a game design perspective. All it would take is for one ship, that would be viable without the buffs,  being randomly buffed some more, and suddenly we have Rooks Online for awhile. It is a lot safer to change one thing at a time, meaning you can get the change out faster, and balance with more data about how ships work with these new mechanics that you would have otherwise.

There is obviously a concern that CCP will simply forget about ECM ships and not balance them, but one of the big turnarounds I’ve seen in my time on the CSM is that CCP is finally seeing the value of a more active hand in balancing ships. We’ve had more balance passes in the past 18 months than we had in the 3 years before that, which makes me incredibly happy. It is a huge step forward for the game. Even the Svipul, which was overpowered for awhile, saw consistent attempts to bring its power level down during that period, instead of ignoring it for 4 years and then nerfing it out of existence, as was CCP’s old MO (see the Drake, for example).

The one use case that we noted to CCP in the meeting discussing these changes was the impact it would have on small gangs vs. carriers. However, I don’t really feel like the problem there is ECM not being powerful enough; rather, I think that is more of an indictment on the fact that carriers do not require subcap support to be highly effective vs. subcaps, which is apparent at pretty much all scales, and gives the group with local capital superiority a huge advantage over their opponents’ subcap forces. I definitely do like the idea of special casing ECM to work in the old way vs. fighters until it is addressed, but I’m not sure if that is possible technically, and have yet to discuss it with CCP.

The Interceptor Change

The Interceptor change effectively amounts to a test between what the CSM believes is the problem with Interceptors (sub 2s warp time + instalock + nullification in combination) and what CCP thinks the problem with Interceptors is (overall hull/weapon balance). By removing nullification from the combat half of interceptors, this can now be tested in practice. If people suddenly start using the ArtyAres fits that have been floating around in the same way that Claws were previously used on a strategic scale, it adds credence to our arguments that one of those factors listed above needs to be addressed in order to make FozzieSov work as intended (as we are fairly sure it is unlikely to be reworked for a significant period of time, given that CCP is focusing on other areas of the game).

If you’re more interested in my thoughts on this topic, I did another article a year or so ago explaining my personal position on the topic.

I will note here that the CSM is very much in favor of retaining a way for people to travel through space with some degree of safety in nullsec. We have suggested giving nullification to shuttles or creating a line of T2 shuttles with nullification on multiple occasions. We feel it would both reduce the pressure on CCP to retain the sub 2s warp time on the hulls (which is IMO the root of the problem that made FozzieClaws so strong) and provide newer players a travel option that doesn’t require 20 days of training and an Omega subscription.

FAXes/Damavik

These topics are more “traditional” balancing updates, with the Damavik now being taken from “complete garbage” to “we’ll see,” and CCP noting that they are aware of the power of FAXes and want to do something about it, though they are not quite sure what to do with it yet. I imagine a lot of discussion will take place regarding that, from both WHs, NS and LS when the minutes come out. I look forward to figuring out a solution that hopefully addresses the different problems found with the power level of the hulls in different circumstances, NS being mostly concerned about massdropping passive FAXes, whereas WHs have more of a problem with nigh-unkillable active rep fits.

On “Band-Aids” in General

This kind of update is EXACTLY what the community has asked for, time and time again. It is CCP iterating in small, simple ways, and addressing problems that have lingered for years. Things like the ECM rework is a prime example; doing a full overhaul of the entire mechanic and every ship using it would take a dev out of commission for a few months, meaning that a lot of other projects fall behind. Making a more simple, quick change like this, then evaluating the results and making further changes based on data, are at the core of iterative design.

You can’t both want CCP to change things quickly to keep the game fresh and never actually change things enough that they cause a shift in how you use something, or the balance of the game overall. That is not an update being incomplete; that is EVE being a continual work in progress, rather than a succession of jesus features. If you want small, quick fixes and iterative changes, your argument against specific changes can’t be that CCP won’t iterate on them in the future—that would be a paradoxical argument.

CCP is finally rediscovering their balls. Don’t kick them in said balls so hard they retreat like two bruised turtles’ heads, please.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your own article to Imperium News here!

Would you like to join the Imperium News staff? Find out how!

Comments

  • D/z

    It nice to see some of the longest running cancer brought front and center. Although as a side thought add the point/scram range to the combat interceptor as this bonus seems to fit the combat roll instead of the fast scout. For ecm I want to see ship status before making a judgement on it. Fax falls under the n+1 no matter what. Maybe a rep decrease or dread FPS increase for capital guns.

    September 22, 2018 at 1:10 pm
    • Garreth Vlox D/z

      maybe both would be worth it. Some of the fights we saw in the last war involved at times hundreds of dreads shooting at a target they can’t break because half as many faxes were repping the same target. Given how many titan and supers there are, giving dreads slightly bigger teeth might give people an option to fight titans besides more titans, and making faxes slightly less OP would make titans+fax a little less of a win button than it seems to be at the moment.

      September 23, 2018 at 8:13 pm
    • Arrendis D/z

      It nice to see some of the longest running cancer brought front and center.

      People? >.>

      September 25, 2018 at 1:45 am
  • Carvj94

    The problem with the ECM change is exactly that it is a taunt. Except unlike in other MMOs the one using the taunt isn’t a tank (the opposite for the most part) and is therefor worthless. ECM ships will need to get their EHP significantly buffed (and potential dps halved) by at least by double to make this ECM change make sense.

    That said me and my wormhole buddies are screwed again in a big way cause of this. Not only will we not have HICs for rolling holes anymore but now we won’t be able to use anything bigger than a cruiser safely because we can’t fit ECMs to, with luck, break locks and escape. Cause remember rolling ships are none combat ships and can’t fight or survive long and combat fit ships can’t roll holes safely cause they have a good chance of getting rolled out.

    Also wanna point out that the most prevalent idea for keeping rolling HICs a thing is making a script that causes the reduction in mass with no bubble and prevents prop mods from activating. That one flooded the forum post for the dev blog. I frankly haven’t even seen two of the proposals you mentioned.

    September 22, 2018 at 3:27 pm
    • Jin'taan Carvj94

      “and prevents prop mods from activating.”

      Lurch HICs activate prop mod, then put the mass effect on – You’d need the script to turn off all prop mods (500mn/100mn) the second it activates, which is tech CCP doesn’t actually have.

      September 22, 2018 at 3:43 pm
      • Arrendis Jin'taan

        Apply the ‘I’m scrambled’ function. Right now the ‘you are scrambled’ coming from the server tells the prop to shut off. Apply that same call locally.

        September 22, 2018 at 4:12 pm
      • awesomegamer919 Jin'taan

        Apply a 1s long Scram? Shouldn’t be too hard to do…

        September 22, 2018 at 6:08 pm
  • Arrendis

    So, just to put this in writing, because we discussed it a bit last night on Open Comms…

    Band-Aids on Band-Aids is not about ‘CCP iterating in small, simple ways, and addressing problems that have lingered for years’. I want to be clear on that here, Jin. It is 100% possible to have a comprehensive, big-picture vision of how things should fit together and use small, iterative changes to address lingering problems and otherwise try to keep moving toward that vision.

    It’s also 100% possible to have that big-picture view even if you’re dealing with a massively complex system full of moving parts, like EVE online. If anything, having that big-picture view is more essential the larger and more complex the system you’re working on is. That comprehensive, all-encompassing vision actually helps with these small, iterative changes. It helps by giving you the consistent framework and ‘what was it we wanted to happen here, long term?’ to shoot for.

    But, as we both said last night, part of the problem is the lack of CCP dedicating resources to making that kind of model work. ‘Balance’, ie: the iterative polish and sanding to get the rough spots smoothed over and working right, isn’t something CCP dedicates resources to at all. So devs with a mountain of other projects have to do it in their spare time. And why? Because CCP is apparently operating under the impression that retention ‘just happens’, that changes make people quit, but having a dedicated cadre of people who are there just as problem-solvers wouldn’t make people stay.

    And that’s just ridiculous. Want evidence? Four letters: C-A-R-S.

    Look at the automotive industry. One of the things that helps ensure customer loyalty once you buy a car is service. I’m not even talking warranty, although quality of warranty does the same thing, too. I’m talking about ‘My Ford Explorer is 8 years old and out of warranty, but the service techs at the Ford dealer treat me like gold and always make sure my problems are fixed fast and fixed right’.

    And CCP doesn’t have to wait for each individual customer to come in to the shop. They get to service everybody’s car all at once.

    But they can’t expect everyone to think the same thing about just what ‘my car is running properly’ entails if they’re giving us a wide open slate of ‘do whatever you can‘ and then not telling us what their plan is. They need to communicate a common vision of ‘how fast is my truck supposed to go?’ before they can expect people to not be upset when they say ‘uhm, yeah, this thing here that was killing fuel efficiency but giving you an extra billion horsepower? Yeah, that’s not how that’s supposed to work on this model, sorry. Factory recall.’

    And to be able to communicate that common baseline… they have to have one.

    Also: 100MN Lurch HIC. I just tried it, on TQ, in 1dq1-A at the P5 customs office. 5 seconds to accelerate from 200m/s (no bubble, no prop) to 800m/s.(prop, then bubble) 8 seconds to get to 1k. Bubble then prop, it didn’t even try to get past 500m/s.

    5s isn’t a lurch. ABs don’t accelerate that fast, even with perfect agility.

    September 22, 2018 at 4:09 pm
    • DickDastardly Arrendis

      What a bizarre example. CCP do things as if they were using something like the US Constitution. If that didn’t exist it would be far easier to introduce gun control and limit hate speech. Isn’t the Supreme Court part of the constitution? Without them (or with their role being slightly different) the US legislature would probably come up with an abortion bill which clearly defined what is and isn’t allowed rather than depending on a 1973 decision which could be overturned.

      September 24, 2018 at 6:26 pm
      • Arrendis DickDastardly

        It’s an easy example of an overarching design document for an incredibly complex system.

        Also, yes, the existence of the Supreme Court is. Many of the functions of the Court are established purely by fiat (like the ability to review the constitutionality of legislation). And the Legislature *can* come up with a measure to spell out what is and isn’t allowed re: abortion. They’d just need to pass it with a 2/3 majority in each house, then have it ratified by 2/3 of the States. It’s called an Amendment.

        September 25, 2018 at 1:44 am
  • helo12

    What’s up jin love your videos and your general out look on eve. I’m a wormholer though and I found it hard to not be bitter about both the phrasing and method of development that went into the lurch hic nerf. I am a game/software developer and I’m happy to see ccp moving away from a waterfall style of development to an AGILE style. The changes without the hics are fantastic imo and will change the meta a decent amount and keep the game interesting.

    That being said 3 things went wrong that I think led to the bitterness from wormholers you saw through out this feedback cycle and I want to point them out.
    1 Csm issued a unified statement that did not address the hic change and 2 members of the body told wormholers to get fucked. This fed a narrative that csm doesn’t give a shit despite one csm’s best intentions(thanks bb)

    2 wormholers have long felt second class when it comes to updates in this game. Whether it’s true or not there is no denying that the way this update was phrased and the way that csm reacted to it did nothing to push that narrative away.

    3 the reason for the bitterness is was not the actual hic change imo. It was the fact that the mass reduction module was not announced along side it. If it had been some people would’ve bitched sure but they would have had no narrative.

    I don’t like that wormholers feel this way. I don’t like the way they interacted with the rest of you even though I feel it was necessary. But at the end of the day both ccp and csm have to make sure the changes they are moving forward do not go against promises previously made to the customer. If those changes are made no shit gamers are gonna be mad. Aside from this you’ll probably just see us slink back to our wormholes and not need to be bothered by us for awhile. Most of us like the rest of the changes btw.

    But to be clear the narrative was left wide open. And nothing aside from the response of ccp rise and one csm member made me as a wormholer feel like I had any other option than to scream and yell as loud as possible. All of this to say there were many options to avoid giving wormholers ground to stand on with this change. Few of them if any were taken and I think that is why you saw the amount of vitriolic hate that you did. Not that it was deserved. But in situations like this it should be expected.

    September 22, 2018 at 6:01 pm
    • Fuzzysteve helo12

      (Something to be aware of. Aryth can be, at times, a little crass. He finds it amusing. If he can extract salt, he’ll do it.)

      September 22, 2018 at 8:20 pm
  • Punky260

    Thanks Jintaan. This really needed to be said.

    September 22, 2018 at 8:56 pm
  • Deni'z von Meanace

    I just don’t understand the core thing about CCP which gives a fouck to playerbase on periodic bases nevertheless continues make a good face all the time with their endless efforts to keep this game running.

    September 22, 2018 at 10:22 pm
  • Steve Scott

    The ECM on my DST was my only hope for getting out when scrammed. Oh well.

    September 23, 2018 at 1:19 am
    • Jin'taan Steve Scott

      ECM bursts retain their previous lock breaking behaviours, and have – in my experience – generally been better than regular ECM for the purpose anyway, as good gatecamps will have backup scrams.

      September 23, 2018 at 4:57 am
  • Rovinia

    The reason that these changes didn’t get taken well by large parts of the community is that CCP donesn’t have any credit left by the playerbase if it comes to “we’ll fix it later”. Because it can take YEARS until something happens if the unholy words (we’ll look at it soon™) are once spoken.

    And both, ECM and HIC changes, were based on this promise.

    Unfortunately, they worked hard to earn this reputation over the last ten years and it’s even harder to get rid of it.

    I’m not a CSM conspiracy theorist btw, i’m sure you guys do your best.

    September 23, 2018 at 1:33 pm
  • As a person who likes to roam around and gatecamp and generally try to kill people in a non-consensual fashion, I kind of hate you for arguing for the existence of “travel ships.”

    The game worked just fine for a fucking decade without an invulnerable travel ship. There is no reason for any form of un-interdictable ship to exist in the game. Traveling in a covops frigate is sufficient to render you immune to the interdiction efforts of anything but a dedicated gate camp (IE: multiple hostile players fielding both interdictors / HICs and fast-tackle ships for decloaks). Why should people have access to ships which allow them to evade piles of other players with near-zero investment of ISK, time/effort, or learned piloting skill? I think it’s complete bullshit. You might as well just remove all the cooldown periods and number caps on jumpclones. I can hop in an interceptor and cross EVE in 30 minutes at basically zero risk of dying. The same would be true for a taxi-shuttle. The skill/effort threshold involved consists of not-autopiloting. Taxis are stupid and they can all die in a fire, thanks.

    September 24, 2018 at 3:40 am
    • anaisanais501 Ganthrithor

      If you’re desperate to get taxi-shuttles, setup a smartbomb camp. It’s just as unreasonable for you to think you should be able to kill everything that travels as it is to expect anything that travels to scoot across the universe risk-free. At least with the taxi-shuttle I’m limited in cargo to perhaps skill books and I have no weapons. We aren’t going to see fleets of these things derping about from region to region are we.

      September 26, 2018 at 10:33 am
      • Except you’re wrong: it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that all undocked ships in EVE should be at risk of being blown up. That’s how it was from 2003 to 2011, and it didn’t stop anybody from enjoying EVE. I don’t understand where this notion comes from that there should be a risk-free way to move around space? Why not just let players use the /moveme command then? Why not be able to purchase and inject skills from anywhere at any time using the in-game cash shop?

        EVE was designed as a game where geography mattered. Between jump freighters, black ops BS, bridge-able blockade runners, and taxi ceptors/yachts there’s now a zero-risk way to get where you need to go regardless of what quantity of stuff you need to bring with you. It’s stupid and it’s not in the original spirit of the game.

        September 26, 2018 at 7:24 pm
        • anaisanais501 Ganthrithor

          > EVE was designed as a game where geography mattered

          It really wasn’t. I played in beta 6. Geography didn’t matter at all, except insofar as nullsec had no stations in it, and there was a lot of that. It also only had 2,500 players.

          Giving shuttle nullification does not in any way impact the “purity” of the game experience. It’ll be just as it was yesterday except you’ll be leaving shuttles all over the map instead of Maledictions.

          September 27, 2018 at 11:10 am
          • I don’t know what to tell you friend: it definitely did matter. Back then most people didn’t have access to jump-capable ships and nobody had access to subcaps that could move about completely unimpeded. If someone lived down a pipe or needed to get from one place to another and you threw eight or ten guys on a gate in between with a Sabre and some inties who were good at decloaks, almost nobody got through. Now that’s all gone out the window.

            September 28, 2018 at 3:43 am
          • anaisanais501 Ganthrithor

            Yes, I use a blops myself to bridge my Viator around. Only yesterday I used an interceptor to go and get a skill book. The game didn’t insist I die a few times in the attempt. If it did who knows, maybe I just wouldn’t bother and you’d still have nothing to interdict.

            September 28, 2018 at 11:24 am
          • Yes, but in case B even though I have nothing to interdict, I’ve prevented you from doing your shit. That’s the difference. If you can’t blockade anybody, there’s so little you can do to shut down their activities. People love to bitch about AFK cloaking, but right now AFK cloaking is the only way you can have an effect on a hostile entity other than killing their structures. There’s literally no middle-ground at all. It’s just, “participate in strategic ops, rat, or die of boredom.”

            September 28, 2018 at 11:39 pm
  • Romulus Loches

    I am a big fan of creating a T2 shuttle that has 90% fatigue reduction as well as nullification. This creates a great travel method and allows for interceptors to be balanced without worrying about niche travel purposes.

    September 24, 2018 at 6:09 pm
    • Gerd L. Plüü Romulus Loches

      Aye. Make a T2 shuttle like that, and get not only Interceptors, but everything else above 2s align time, so we can catch them. That would help HS and LS as well.

      September 25, 2018 at 5:36 pm
      • Romulus Loches Gerd L. Plüü

        I would say that anything with nullification should have above 2s align time (except the T2 shuttle maybe), but ships without nullification could. This could provide a trade off of either avoiding tackle by bubbles or instalock, but not both.

        September 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm
        • Gerd L. Plüü Romulus Loches

          I am against being able to avoid tackle everytime in anything of strategic value. A shuttle, yeah, whatever. But if it can fight, or refit into something that can fight, or if it can mine, or transport large quantities of stuff or do anything meaningful in any way it should not be uncatchable.

          On top of that: I often play outside of Nullsec. And there, I don’t care if something could technically be caught in a bubble, as bubbles don’t exist there, and everything with an align time <2s is practically uncatchable. And that sucks big time.

          September 29, 2018 at 3:46 am
          • Romulus Loches Gerd L. Plüü

            That’s the trade off of playing in Lowsec, it’s supposed to be safer than Nullsec. It’s not that I don’t feel for your situation, but it’s not the main problem that trying to be addressed with the changes.

            September 29, 2018 at 4:31 am