These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Canaris Roshaak
Repercussus
#741 - 2015-06-12 13:36:43 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
And i still need to see any possitive point for people who are not part of 250 man fleet alliances.


Easy: I cant warp my 250man blob on your 40 man kiting/sniper fleet in 10 seconds anymore.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#742 - 2015-06-12 13:36:48 UTC
I wish I had more time to post, but...

I once recommended that combat recons get scanning bonuses and launcher bonuses as a role bonus in lieu of dscan immunity. I think it would mesh really well with this for the purposes of heavy tackle. You can rig it for faster warp if you need, but I think this is a prime opportunity to make combat recons into...well, combat recons :D

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#743 - 2015-06-12 13:37:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Scout/cepter/anything warps off, you instantly warp to that pilot while he is in warp. Why is this hard for people?


Those kids never learned "warp to interceptor" for getting a safespot.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#744 - 2015-06-12 13:40:09 UTC
Bombers will hardly be effected - they will just warp someone cloaked to the perch then warp the wing to the first bomber, do their bombing run then warp off, rinse and repeat. However, sniper fleets will suffer a death blow - snipers land on grid shoot for a while and then are supposed to warp to the next perch - but how are you supposed to know which perch the FC intends? There is no fleet BM broadcast. The only work around is to have some cloaky move to the new perch in advance of you - which is clearly awkward.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#745 - 2015-06-12 13:41:15 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Bombers will hardly be effected - they will just warp someone cloaked to the perch then warp the wing to the first bomber, do their bombing run then warp off, rinse and repeat. However, sniper fleets will suffer a death blow - snipers land on grid shoot for a while and then are supposed to warp to the next perch - but how are you supposed to know which perch the FC intends? There is no fleet BM broadcast. The only work around is to have some cloaky move to the new perch in advance of you - which is clearly awkward.


Use a few cepters to burn new spots.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#746 - 2015-06-12 13:42:12 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
Have you considered making the game more fun for a change


Please its ccp - as the icons have taught us - if its not broke, it will be fixed until its broke.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#747 - 2015-06-12 13:43:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Bombers will hardly be effected - they will just warp someone cloaked to the perch then warp the wing to the first bomber, do their bombing run then warp off, rinse and repeat. However, sniper fleets will suffer a death blow - snipers land on grid shoot for a while and then are supposed to warp to the next perch - but how are you supposed to know which perch the FC intends? There is no fleet BM broadcast. The only work around is to have some cloaky move to the new perch in advance of you - which is clearly awkward.


Use a few cepters to burn new spots.


How would that work with sniper fleets, since the targets will be able to see where you intend to go which is the exact opposite of what you want.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Marox Calendale
Xynodyne
The Initiative.
#748 - 2015-06-12 13:44:04 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
ArmEagle Kusoni wrote:
So, to run anoms (in w-space) we can't easily warp there all together anymore. Everyone will need the probe scanner window open/have bookmarks or have to wait for one player to have landed. Alliance bookmarks would only make that slightly less of an issue.

That's just one example of how people will become unnecessarily more vulnarable, or things taking more time.


Anoms yes, Sigs no.


Edit:

Yes, you'll be able to fleet warp to anoms.
No, you won't be able to fleet warp to signatures.

Just for clarity (which was obviously lacking)

Sorry, but this doesn´t matter. If you´re doing Sleeper Sites, in let´s say a C4 with a group of Tengus, then you won´t warp to the anom, you will warp to a BM of that Anom. Because there are only 4 different kinds of Sites available and you need to sort them, so that the salvager will find the right one which is free of NPC´s.

Also Gas Cloud Harvesting in WH will decrease a bit, as Harvesting Fleets with more than one prospect per player will have to handle a slightly increased risk.

At the bottom line: The Material Costs for T3´s and D3´s will increase as well as group play in WH will decrease.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#749 - 2015-06-12 13:45:47 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


How would that work with sniper fleets, since the targets will be able to see where you intend to go which is the exact opposite of what you want.


Everyone currently use this tactic and have done for the last 12 years for almost every fleet.
Garr-Song Mishi
Tyrant's
Short Bus Syndicate
#750 - 2015-06-12 13:46:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Garr-Song Mishi
Personally, I think this idea is bad as it stands.

However, I do think that if (as several others have mentioned) the idea is to increase responsibility of other pilots in fleet actions, then fine....disable fleet warps but allow squad warps. The squad commander does little other than pass on boosts currently , so having them actually do the positioning of their squads could only be a good thing while also mitigating the horrible impact of this change on small gangs.
h4kun4
Senkawa Tactical Division
Crimson Citadel
#751 - 2015-06-12 13:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: h4kun4
i suppose what you guys didn't consider while thinking about those changes is, that even now catching someone with probes is hard enough because a pilot that is aware of him being scanned down, can easily escape. The only chance was to warp the whole fleet onto him and hope that you might get enough points surviving to kill him, now you've got to warp there and hope that your scanner will not die before the rest of the guys land, just brilliant.

So, workaround: Probe ceptors? Probe-tackle Proteuses? Probe Dictors? (many ships will need a CPU bonus to actually fit that role)

Also, i can't imagine a bomber wing work properly on kiting targets (like ishtars) [#nerfishtars], with this, which makes them even more OP.

An many other things getting a lot riskier, especially multiaccount pve, which sounds very interesting to me in PvP matters. \o/ shooting multiminers everyday.

I will see how it is and ether reconsider my opinion or whine about later it when its out. <- as always
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#752 - 2015-06-12 13:50:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:

Anyone with a useful fit? Baltec, the expanded launcher is the one with the really high CPU requirement. Just in case you are confused.



It would be nice if just for once people such as yourself spent a bit more time figuring stuff out for yourself rather than demanding everything to be handed to you on a platter.

So basicily you admit it is not possbile.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#753 - 2015-06-12 13:51:25 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:

Anyone with a useful fit? Baltec, the expanded launcher is the one with the really high CPU requirement. Just in case you are confused.



It would be nice if just for once people such as yourself spent a bit more time figuring stuff out for yourself rather than demanding everything to be handed to you on a platter.

So basicily you admit it is not possbile.


Where did I say that?
Ele Rebellion
Vertex Armada
The Initiative.
#754 - 2015-06-12 13:53:38 UTC
CCP Larrikin


btw.. Friendship > RHML Typhoon
Canaris Roshaak
Repercussus
#755 - 2015-06-12 13:54:11 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:

Anyone with a useful fit? Baltec, the expanded launcher is the one with the really high CPU requirement. Just in case you are confused.



It would be nice if just for once people such as yourself spent a bit more time figuring stuff out for yourself rather than demanding everything to be handed to you on a platter.

So basicily you admit it is not possbile.


Hint: T3 destroyers are fast, have good tank, and a 95% fitting reduction on probes.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#756 - 2015-06-12 13:55:19 UTC
I am not sure this is even implementable but is there a way to share probe screens in fleet. It would still require members of fleets to warp to points but would not rule out the use of probing all together.
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#757 - 2015-06-12 13:56:58 UTC
What issue/problem is this change designed to fix? i.e. Why has it even been considered?
Alisanna
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#758 - 2015-06-12 13:57:21 UTC
Tried to sleep on this one before commenting. I woke up and still feel the same.

This change is a bad one and should be strongly reconsidered.

Your stated goal is :

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.


Unfortunately, this goal does very little to enhance this behavior. You've done exactly is this--
Before:
FC probes enemy fleet, FC warps fleet on top of enemy and people get content.

After:
FC probes enemy fleet, FC warps fleet on top of enemy. Enemy gets away before fleet can arrive. Less content.

Here's another scenario:

Two fleets have skirmished and one is attempting to disengage and warp out. The other attempts to pursue. The escaping fleet has a dictor drop a bubble in-line with the gate that they're running towards to prevent pursuit..

Before:
FC warps fleet to a gate ping and the chase is on.

After:
FC warps someone to a ping. 20 seconds later, warps the fleet to the ping.
Enemy fleet is long gone.

Less content.

That's just two PvP examples of how this change makes things less fun and less content oriented. We need changes that bring people into conflict with each other. Not changes that make it more difficult to get content.


Now, I recognize there is likely a subset of Eve players who are solo gankers, cloaky campers, and the like who think a change like this (making it much more difficult to deal with them) would be fine and I accept that point-of-view; however, the vast majority of people playing this game don't want it to be less fun.

Additionally, I think the effect on new pilots will be larger than you might expect. Most pilots getting into PvP have enough trouble remembering not to split their guns and to align to something. This makes it harder for them to learn and we all know what Eve needs is a steeper learning curve.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#759 - 2015-06-12 13:57:48 UTC
Canaris Roshaak wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:

Anyone with a useful fit? Baltec, the expanded launcher is the one with the really high CPU requirement. Just in case you are confused.



It would be nice if just for once people such as yourself spent a bit more time figuring stuff out for yourself rather than demanding everything to be handed to you on a platter.

So basicily you admit it is not possbile.


Hint: T3 destroyers are fast, have good tank, and a 95% fitting reduction on probes.

Can't cloak, will get spotted on d-scan . Targets will be gone.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Delucian
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#760 - 2015-06-12 14:00:54 UTC
Okay, TLDR, and I know you are tyring to play to the bottom 80% of Eve who can't - align, watch local, Dscan, be asked to lose a ship in a game about losing ships - but really!

This seems more about dumbing down for the masses than making a challenging game that entices one to become better.

Next will be that we cant have multiple ship types in a fleet.