These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[AEGIS] Fleet Warp Changes - Please see devblog!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
kelmiler delbone
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#381 - 2015-06-12 04:58:55 UTC
We've always been able to warp fleets to bookmarks, this change is apparently aimed at bomber wings, which make runs in 8's....

Sounds like someone's been disturbing CCP's little friends blobs and they aren't having that! (again)
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#382 - 2015-06-12 04:59:07 UTC
CCP, let's say in this way, FC create content, i mean most of the fleet need an FC to lead the fleet. Now you are nerfing the FC role, nerfing the experience of them，you are actually nerfing everyone, just ruin the game. The icons are really bad, but this does not affect the mechanic and we will get used to it, but for this one, you are forcing people to quit.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#383 - 2015-06-12 05:00:34 UTC
I do really like the squad warp idea.

Go with that, see how people react and adapt and go from there. Squad leadership mechanics have been almost completely ignored over the course of eve's history so it's an interesting idea from that aspect too.

Nothing stopping you guys from making another pass in six months or so once the sodium levels have dropped a bit.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#384 - 2015-06-12 05:03:12 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.

Adapt.

Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.


Oh shut up. This is a line of utter BS and you know it. People shouldn't be punished for CCP's constant grid issues. There's been dozens of times where you land off grid, out of place, out of position from a target. Mere seconds are what count in these types of positioning and execution.

As any FC worth their salt. It's yet again another account some poor bastard has to log in just to try and maintain some sort of fleet cohesion with constant grid issues. There's no "Grandmaster" difficultly level for putting up with terrible game mechanics and half baked ideas.

Go tout more H1Z1 advertising and leave Eve to the rest of us who give a ****.

Nice, a pithy throwaway line at the end. This is sure to increase the level of discourse!

It's a little amusing to me that you see the change and immediately think, "aw man, now the FC has to multibox MORE accounts!" Did you consider delegating tasks to others? The FC doesn't have to be the only decision maker in the fleet.

Also, if we're going to sink to the level of dragging in the alliance membership into the conversation -- consider that my alliance is generally considered to have the lowest skill level possible, when considering line members of fleets. As such, we can be said to rely on the FC far more than any other group in the game. Yet, all of the thought leaders of Goonswarm Federation are unilaterally in support of the change. Curious...

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Naglerr
235MeV
#385 - 2015-06-12 05:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Naglerr
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.

Adapt.

Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.


I would be perfectly happy to adapt to a mechanic that has at least some positive impact. This change is one that simply makes more burdensome the same tasks I've previously had to complete in order to earn kills. I guess I'm just not understanding how literally removing functionality from a product is supposed to make it more appealing to the customers of said product. Can you explain that one to me Querns?

This change has plenty of positive impact -- it severely diminishes the efficacy of bombers, whose omnipresence choked off available fleet comps to those that could either not be caught, or had small enough signature radii to shrug off bombing runs. Assuming workarounds are not found, we could see the resurgence of shield doctrines for subcaps. This returns a whole host of ships to combat effectiveness, which, to me, is a win.


So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything? I mean, why wouldn't you start with the hull bonuses on bombers? Or possibly adjusting the stats of bomb launchers? It's clearly a much better answer to mess with the mechanics that everyone uses than simply nerf the thing that is the target of a nerf.
Agama Tissant
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2015-06-12 05:07:23 UTC
Started with jump fatigue, then fozziesov, now ... no more fleet warps. Updating EVE is a good thing, but radically changing the way we play within our fleets is very WRONG!

Quote:

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


Actually it's more than just changing the way we play, is just about FORCING us to play as you developers want to ... in a sandbox game!



I'll unsubscribe 3 accounts if this gets implemented, this is way too much !
Enzaki
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#387 - 2015-06-12 05:07:49 UTC
ccp WTF !!! kick that fozzi out of ccp NOW HE is ******* the game up .......
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#388 - 2015-06-12 05:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tara Read
Maybe this is a bit of reflection but am I right in thinking that CCP have no clue what direction they want to take things in? It just seems to me from these terrible icons and "UI" changes without really any sort of trial and error (just dumping these in our laps as mini changes in small patches), to now these unwarranted grid and warping mechanics.

Why? I seriously fail to see the explicit reason why these things are paramount. I fail to see why CCP nerfs weapons platforms already niche instead of the ships themselves. And worst yet these changes are still implemented without any real sort of constructive changes.

What's the point? Are fleet mechanics broken? Is there a need to change icons that have been around 11 years? Maybe CCP need to stop focusing on 20 dollar ship skins and making us purchase more accounts to circumvent terrible mechanics ideas. Hate to say it but there is no way on God's green earth I'm making a seventh account which I pay all for with money.

Maybe CCP needs to fix it's financial house instead of pigeonholing players and FC's into forcing us to continually multi box for stupid reasons. There's already people in my Alliance that have 4 or 5 accounts running doing multiple things. Adding another headache to people is just not worth it.

And NO CCP you won't get an actual separate player filling this role. Because no FC is stupid enough to trust another player to botch crucial fleet positioning or target tackle. Period. If this is Fozzie's doing I can't wait for Riot to come calling. Lord swing that chariot low for the sanity of us all!
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#389 - 2015-06-12 05:08:30 UTC
Naglerr wrote:

So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?

No.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#390 - 2015-06-12 05:09:22 UTC
Agama Tissant wrote:
Started with jump fatigue, then fozziesov, now ... no more fleet warps. Updating EVE is a good thing, but radically changing the way we play within our fleets is very WRONG!

Quote:

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


Actually it's more than just changing the way we play, is just about FORCING us to play as you developers want to ... in a sandbox game!



I'll unsubscribe 3 accounts if this gets implemented, this is way too much !

"Sandbox" does not mean the thing you think it means.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#391 - 2015-06-12 05:09:32 UTC
I think its funny how larkin puts up the thread and answers the questions and fozzie is still getting railed for it.

I know that pain.
Naglerr
235MeV
#392 - 2015-06-12 05:11:30 UTC
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?

No.


Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2015-06-12 05:11:49 UTC
Agama Tissant wrote:
Started with jump fatigue, then fozziesov, now ... no more fleet warps. Updating EVE is a good thing, but radically changing the way we play within our fleets is very WRONG!

Quote:

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


Actually it's more than just changing the way we play, is just about FORCING us to play as you developers want to ... in a sandbox game!



I'll unsubscribe 3 accounts if this gets implemented, this is way too much !

You're going to unsubscribe because you have to pilot your own ship now? Straight
Vanilla Mooses
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2015-06-12 05:12:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanilla Mooses
Querns wrote:
Vanilla Mooses wrote:
Dearest CCP:

You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.

So?


I believe I answered your question in the rest of my post. You should try reading it versus making totally nonconstructive posts that add nothing to this discussion. Stop bad posting, please.
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#395 - 2015-06-12 05:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tara Read
Querns wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.

Adapt.

Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.


Oh shut up. This is a line of utter BS and you know it. People shouldn't be punished for CCP's constant grid issues. There's been dozens of times where you land off grid, out of place, out of position from a target. Mere seconds are what count in these types of positioning and execution.

As any FC worth their salt. It's yet again another account some poor bastard has to log in just to try and maintain some sort of fleet cohesion with constant grid issues. There's no "Grandmaster" difficultly level for putting up with terrible game mechanics and half baked ideas.

Go tout more H1Z1 advertising and leave Eve to the rest of us who give a ****.

Nice, a pithy throwaway line at the end. This is sure to increase the level of discourse!

It's a little amusing to me that you see the change and immediately think, "aw man, now the FC has to multibox MORE accounts!" Did you consider delegating tasks to others? The FC doesn't have to be the only decision maker in the fleet.

Also, if we're going to sink to the level of dragging in the alliance membership into the conversation -- consider that my alliance is generally considered to have the lowest skill level possible, when considering line members of fleets. As such, we can be said to rely on the FC far more than any other group in the game. Yet, all of the thought leaders of Goonswarm Federation are unilaterally in support of the change. Curious...


There's a difference between having 10000 F1 monkeys and a delegated few in small gang pvp to take on roles. The application of these ideas is foolish. It's another burden on small gang and core content creators. So again I call utter BS. Funny how you say "adapt" yet tout that the role can easily be passed on to other players.

Are you going to fill that role? Are you going to step up and be designated tackle *****? And when you fail and when you screw up a fleet position due to grid issues what then? I seriously doubt you'd fill this role. But for sake of argument I'll entertain the thought of some poor sap getting his ass chewed on TS for screwing the pooch due to these changes.
shenzhen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#396 - 2015-06-12 05:14:43 UTC
This changed is the most stupid idea。 If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasingOops
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#397 - 2015-06-12 05:15:56 UTC
Naglerr wrote:
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?

No.


Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships.

Nah. You asked for a positive aspect to the fleet warp change, and I supplied it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Vanilla Mooses
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2015-06-12 05:17:15 UTC
shenzhen wrote:
This changed is the most stupid idea。 If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasingOops


You see, this does not work and seems rather silly.

Why don't you take the time to discuss why you think this is a bad idea, how it would effect your gameplay, and offer suggestions or alternatives to the proposed changes that still achieve the desired goal?

Simply saying "I don't like it and I will just quit if I don't get my way" really does not help.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#399 - 2015-06-12 05:17:39 UTC
Vanilla Mooses wrote:
Querns wrote:
Vanilla Mooses wrote:
Dearest CCP:

You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.

So?


I believe I answered your question in the rest of my post. You should try reading it.

I don't need to -- this line invalidates any potential point you could have made by dint of it being a completely specious argument towards reversing a change.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
blue coeur
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom
#400 - 2015-06-12 05:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: blue coeur
I'm having a hard time putting words to how I feel about these changes.

I suppose the first thing that should be mentioned is that I'm a wormhole citizen. So all my opinions are all based in the context of living and working in Wormhole space.

Fleet members in WH corporations already work very hard...
Wormhole space is hard, I like it that way. My corp effectively spends hundreds of hours every week scanning for content and when content is found, our scouts bookmark routes and any celestials or wrecks near that content.

With your proposed changes, this will have very little affect on our day to day operations. But it's just another nuisance that we will add to the list.

Will your changes fix the current issue of Bookmarks taking up to several minutes to populate?
Currently when we share bookmarks with other corporations, we effectively still have to fleet warp because waiting for bookmarks to populate can be the death of us or whoever we are trying to help.

Lastly
I already pay way too much for this game then I care to admit, but the changes you "CCP" are proposing makes it feel like not much thought has been given to Wormhole life.

Seriously, I challenge you to live in a Wormhole for a month.