These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1721 - 2015-06-20 15:43:42 UTC
Arrendis wrote:


CCP, If you want fleet members more engaged, give them reason to be engaged. Right-clicking a name when someone XXs in fleet chat and selecting 'fleet - > warp to member' isn't any more 'engagement' than ctrl-clicking a broadcast and pressing F1.

Give people things to do. Give them reasons to do them. And do it in a way that doesn't pile additional burdens onto the fleet members who are already engaged and already active and busy.



This is my fundamental issue with this proposal. I can find workarounds for the annoyances and tedium imposed by this change. I just don't think this change will actually achieve any measurable gains in terms of participation in fleets and gangs.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Arrendis
TK Corp
#1722 - 2015-06-20 16:20:58 UTC
Here, just to throw out a few general ideas for 'things to do' - not one of these ideas, it should be noted, are guaranteed to be any good, I haven't had any caffeine yet.

Make positioning matter for more than just range / transversal - it's a massive conceptual change, but introduce firing arcs. Introduce damage arcs. Right now, we're basically fighting with 18th century line-of-battle tactics. Point everyone in the same direction until it's time to relocate, open fire.

In concert with damage arcs, give us actual microgravity orientations. Which way is 'up'? 'Up' is the direction in most perfect opposition to the local aggregate gravitational acceleration. That's all 'up' is. I'm taking fire on my left side and the armor's almost gone... lemme frippin' roll to put that fire coming in from my untouched right side. Look! the pilot's got to do something now! he's got to pay attention to the enemy fleet's positioning! he's got to know how his ship moves and how quickly it rolls.

Shield regeneration on different shield arcs means rolling with incoming damage can spread it out across 4-6 (depending on quadrant or hex-grid) different arcs and maybe let your passive regen handle it - or reinforce shield arcs 5 and 6 w/power from 2 and 3. (hex grid, 1 is the bow, 4 is the stern, primary arcs run clockwise in this example). Look! More things for pilots to do and be aware of about how their ship works - more risks to take, too! Do I flip my shields to double-up in the direction of the enemy fleet pre-emptively? What if I get bombed or attacked along the open arc(s)?

BREAK. MY. SHIPS.

I fly logi. I fly logi almost exclusively. We're ridiculously overpowered, and everyone knows it. You know it. There's a reason you don't allow teams of 100% Basilisks or Guardians to enter the AT - they'd be damned near unkillable. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Make us a viable and useful part of the fleet, but don't make us the 'I WIN' button we really are right now.

2 fleets of 50+ battleships pounding on a fleet w/70 logistics cruisers, unable to kill a bloody thing. Why? Because we're too good. Fix us. Break my damned ships, please. And don't just do some lame direct nerf that just means we bring even more logi. Don't do some lame thing that just means 'well, now the meta is alpha people off the field... again'. Figure out a way to make us useful without making us able to shut the enemy down completely. We're smegging tenders, man. Remote repair drones are basically damage control parties being sent to repair friendly ships.

Replace the remote shield/armor boosters with remote boost amplifiers, maybe. Or resistance amplifiers. Heck, why not both? Both of them can be subject to diminishing returns, both of them mean the dps pilot's got to be on his toes to activate local reps... right now, heck, half of them barely wake up in time to broadcast for reps. Probably a full 10% of them never wake up enough, and just die.

Because that's what you're up against, devs - it's not that there's nothing to keep them engaged, it's that what's there to keep them engaged is sporadic, with vast wastelands of broadsiding men-o-war in between that don't have to care about which direction the fire is coming from, or where the enemy fleet is, other than speed and distance. And fleet warping will not change that.

Give the ships of the line more to do in the fight. and break my bloody ship. PLEASE.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1723 - 2015-06-20 17:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Arrendis wrote:
Replace the remote shield/armor boosters with remote boost amplifiers, maybe. Or resistance amplifiers.


A thought on the remote armor/shield hardener idea: this can be further tweaked to use ammo. Oh, I don't mean something stupid like 'you get to cycle the module 2000 times and then it's done because you ran out of healy-bullets'. I mean similar to scripts, really - unscripted, each one's a very small boost to all 4 resists. Scripted/crystalled/whatevered, all of that focuses on a single resistance. If you're prepared and you know what you're enemy's using, you can set your remote resistance boosters to a perfect mix. And then when they change damage types, you scramble to keep up.

Will that make things a little more complicated for the already often-overworked logi pilots? Eh, a little, maybe. But more, it'll mean the line pilots need to be paying attention to what they're being hit with.

So, you know, providing them that information in a more accessible manner than rummaging through the combat log in the middle of a fight? That might also help them stay 'more engaged'. I mean, really, we're talking about massive ships with the computational power to calculate the precise way to warp through a planet without destroying it and everyone on it.

They can't, you know, provide real-time damage analysis beyond '53: Elo Knight [MEN] graze.' ?

An additional note, because we all know 'oh, change X' all-too-often means 'change X and change Y which is sorta like X but not really used at all the same way, so let's change them both because there's no difference' - this doesn't mean change the logibots. Those are, as I said, analogous to actual repair parties. They've got to get to the target to begin making repairs. If the logistics ships themselves are providing resistance boosts, or boosts to a local tank, then suddenly the maintenance bots have a niche: they actually provide remote repairs on their own. They can repair the bits your local tank doesn't (hull, especially, omg I love having hull bots). It gives a reason to train for them, even. Don't touch them. They truly are a beautiful thing that currently is overshadowed and made all but irrelevant by the very same ships most likely to use them. Changing how the logistics ship modules work, and leaving the drones the way they are adds more diversification in terms of what options we have, and what gameplay we pick.

So please, don't take any of this to mean 'change the Logistics Drones', cuz it ain't.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#1724 - 2015-06-20 20:10:59 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


This is my fundamental issue with this proposal. I can find workarounds for the annoyances and tedium imposed by this change. I just don't think this change will actually achieve any measurable gains in terms of participation in fleets and gangs.


^^ This exactly. People will find workarounds, all this change will accomplish is making fleet movements more annoying and tedious rather than smooth, as it has been in the past. With each of these nerfs making the game less fun one after the other, elite dangerous looks more and more attractive to me every day.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1725 - 2015-06-20 22:01:10 UTC
Kinete Jenius wrote:

Well that would certainly make me become uninterested in flying logistics post change.

Awful idea.

Everything about this idea is terrible, it is like changing the stearingwheel of a car while driving without any replacement or other thing to stear with.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Saffoo
StarFarts
#1726 - 2015-06-20 22:51:25 UTC
You might like to remove the current awesome 'This is EVE' video from the website when/if you make this mad change. Why? I hear you say, simple the fleet action filmed was with fleets using Fleet warps

Yarr i know pedantic ain't I :)

RIP the fun of getting everyone in a fleet to align for warp, oh im sorry that was pilot involvement was it :)
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1727 - 2015-06-20 22:51:39 UTC
So the reasoning for the change was stated to be to hamper bombers as one of the primary goals. The "hampering' translates to CCP essentially forcing a safety feature to a bomber fleet, by making a scanning cloaked ship warp to the scan and then have the whole bomb group warp to him and then commence run. All it really did was get rid of quick blind warping, and forced a spot inspection by just one dude as opposed to the whole fleet. So in other words, bomb runs are barely touched, and only the fringe extreme efficient cases are effected, and only by a few seconds.

....However, this playstyle has been totally obliterated....
https://youtu.be/VP8mctMHcaI
...the rapid mobility fleets bouncing to on the fly bookmarks and scan results.

I can't say that I care too much, as I agree with the premise that fleets should be directed by an FC, not wholly and literally navigated by him/her, but I just find it extremely ironic and telling the way CCP does logic. They state a change's purpose is to slow a thing but yet an "unintended" side effect is to completely stop another thing.

So either they don't logic all that gewd, or they are just really bad about stating actual motive, either way, it's mildly humorous when you don't care about an issue, and maddening when you do.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1728 - 2015-06-20 22:52:04 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Kinete Jenius wrote:

Well that would certainly make me become uninterested in flying logistics post change.

Awful idea.

Everything about this idea is terrible, it is like changing the stearingwheel of a car while driving without any replacement or other thing to stear with.


It more like taking away the satnav from the rally driver so he has to use the navigator.

Harry Saq wrote:
So the reasoning for the change was stated to be to hamper bombers as one of the primary goals.


Wrong.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1729 - 2015-06-20 23:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Gentle Space Foke...
...
The goal of these changes is to encourage more individual fleet member participation and reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets (e.g bombers).

...
Q: CCP, why are you nerfing fleet warp just to nerf bombers!?
A: This change is not solely aimed at bombers. we expect bomber fleets to require a lot more pilot involvement and skill. But a highly skilled bomber fleet can still be just as effective as they are now. This runs true for all fleets.


Regardless of "primary", the message had bombers as an example, and the second answer indicates "not solely aimed" meaning they were in the AOE of whatever the hell they were actually aiming at....so saying primary is more overstating than actually wrong...

Semantic arguments aside, my point stands, that while trying to massage one aspect, they wiped out another entirely. It so happens to be one I agree with, but that doesn't make the logic better ;)

They did also state "individual fleet member participation", which you could argue the effectiveness of that premise as well when taking this change as the only change, where the intended affect is more attentive fleet members, which in the spectrum of effects, that one is way on down there in actual practice and likely outcome.
Louanne Barros
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1730 - 2015-06-21 04:33:20 UTC
How about letters on screen we have to follow along with, a la "Typing of the Dead", to increase interactivity?
It's so easy to warp around and launch drones and dock and stuff right now.
Lane Wyeth-XXVI
Perkone
Caldari State
#1731 - 2015-06-21 05:21:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lane Wyeth-XXVI
honestly most of these changes will end up boosting combat recons to a degree (but of course still less seemlessly as before)
people will always argue with a change that being said having a clear head about it will result in there being better tactics and new uses for under valued ships
Eternal Cruiser
Altera Space Industry Inc.
#1732 - 2015-06-21 12:47:15 UTC
If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasing.
Dmitry Kuvora
Sovetsky Soyuz
#1733 - 2015-06-21 12:50:28 UTC
remove approach, keep at range and orbit on fleet members !
it would be much funnier
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1734 - 2015-06-21 17:34:30 UTC
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:

Your post brought a smile to my face :)

Even in a thread with this much emotion and misunderstanding, debate and righteous indignation, constructive criticisms and knee-jerk reactions, your words stand out like a blinding beacon of ignorance.

Dude points out EveWiki.. read the damn 72 pages you lazy muppet Roll


But why? Half of those 72 pages is You! Still didn't hear any game-breaking fundamentals except maybe "comfort". I shall dull it down for you: you need scouts. Scouts is where it's at. And, when on familiar terrain, corp bookmarks. Granted there are still some issues with instant-propagation of bookmarks and alliance bookmarks... but please.

Have a little faith in CCP -- there is definitely a plan behind all this and the way the plan seems to be going, it's in favour of smaller gangs and puts more emphasis on each individual's capabilities. Not to mention the Grand Masterplan seems to favour one *real* person per spaceship, as opposed to "I am a one-man fleet flying eight vessels, because I'm cool like that".

Now, please respond to what I said instead of "he's a beacon of ignorant trololololl" for it does not reflect well on your cognitive abilities either. Write a proper response or don't bother at all.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1735 - 2015-06-21 19:57:47 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
And, when on familiar terrain, corp bookmarks. Granted there are still some issues with instant-propagation of bookmarks and alliance bookmarks... but please.


Corp bookmarks - which you still won't be able to warp a fleet to, so they won't be useful for warping in on a target, propogated or not. For wormholes? Sure, they'll be useful... but not more or less useful than they are now - really, if you're warping blind to a WH that you don't have eyes already on, watching both sides... you're asking to get caught.

Quote:

Have a little faith in CCP -- there is definitely a plan behind all this and the way the plan seems to be going, it's in favour of smaller gangs and puts more emphasis on each individual's capabilities.


No, there's a general idea behind all of this. A plan would have the details worked out in advance, and clearly, they're not. If they were, there wouldn't be all of those 'uhm, I don't know, that's a good point' in Larrikin's soundcloud. There'd be more 'this is how we plan to adjust things', more 'this is our intention for new systems that actually increase fleet member engagement and responsibility', not just some grand concept of 'removing fleet warp gives people more to do!' - because it really doesn't. Traveling will be just the same in k-space - the FC can still warp the fleet to gates, and the fleet members still have to jump through on their own. woo. Such engagement.

Not that having to warp yourself to each new system is much better. One person per spaceship is lovely, if they have something to do. Right now, the combat model for 90% of dps ships is not going to get much more 'engaging' than 'lock up the guy you were told to lock up, and shoot him'. Because most of the dps ships in any significant fleet are just dps ships. Now, how much of that will change w/the sov changes on the 14th remains to be seen - but changing fleet warp and looking to create 'MOAR ENGAGEMENTZ!' while everyone is figuring out that they need a larger number of smaller fleets for node control... that's bad. That's bad, and it's sloppy. Change one aspect of fleet combat at a time - in this case, the organizational model - and make sure that has the effect you want it to, rather than changing 2-4 aspects and then wondering which change produced which result.

Bad, bad practice, that.
ManLee
ManLee Corporation
#1736 - 2015-06-21 19:59:54 UTC
seems logical, I mean Im all for the changes to slow down targets to stop the brainless blobs that occur without true pilot skill, but there is one flaw in this logic if a fleet is comprised of one Corporation and that corp has a BM A in Corp BM's technically every player in that fleet is then viable for that "BM A" so explain why cant they warp as fleet "Fleet Commanders, Wing Commanders & Squad Commanders will no longer be able to warp to anything a fleet member couldn’t warp to on their own." well they can warp to said "BM A" because its in their corp BM's? but seriously I do agree with it too many brainless F1 warriors who have no initiative, Good Times..
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#1737 - 2015-06-21 22:07:25 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Joran Jackson wrote:

I think this change is more about encouraging the small gang playstyle. I just love the new direction of all these balances, from the sov changes to this, to half a dozen other things that have been switched up, I think you are making the game more exciting for the average player. Don't let the salt get you down, Larrakin, the direction Eve is moving is a good one, and I think people will realize it eventually.


Zloco Crendraven wrote:
This will bring another role for the scouts in the fleets and it will differentiate good from the bad ones. Interceptors, cloaky probers will have a much more important role in fights. the more variables are in the fight the better gameplay is.

Fleets require more skill. To warp on a certain spot when told...ohhh so hard!

Will slow down and make harder bomber runs (positive)

Will slow down (a bit) projection in WHs. Probe > warp > fleet warp instead of probe > fleet warp. It will add some 30 sec more which is not really that bad for all the other gains

Only negative thing i heard is it will be almost impossible catching boosting alts. But i think capsuleers will find a way to fit a ship that will be able to do it. also i can live with it especially if CCP plans to remove offgrid boosting.

Name any negative point of this change.


These two gentlemen understand what built EVE, and CCP is working in the right direction here.

I still remember the days when I used to deal in WTZ bookmark sets. Pirate

X4me1eoH wrote:
now, many peoples mining with many windows. And warp all their windows using fleetwarp.Do you expect an increase in ore prices after the patch? Because I think many miners disable their subscriptions. I for sure disable 1-2 my alts.


-= I always laugh here. =-


baltec1 wrote:
Zhul Chembull wrote:
Bad idea gents, this just increases some tedious things in game. I do not support this at all. Quit trying to drive off subscriptions. There are some of the people I know that are on the edge of just finding another game from some of these "wonderful" changes.


Fun fact, back before we got the fleet broadcasting tools EVE was growing at its fastest rate.

Nobody it going to quit over this.


And we had a minimum of Warp to 15 km desinations. And there were no anchors on my memory, nor drone assist/assign. Nor such logi proliferation. Nor the current MLG pro probing system. Smile

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1738 - 2015-06-21 23:32:36 UTC
Did I mention that all that this change will do is make KITING superior to everything?
Its virtually impossible to land your fleet on the kiters if you cant do a fleet warp.

This change will make kiting-fleets the only viable option.

RIP good brawlfights.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1739 - 2015-06-22 02:18:23 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
But why? Half of those 72 pages is You! Still didn't hear any game-breaking fundamentals except maybe "comfort". I shall dull it down for you: you need scouts. Scouts is where it's at. And, when on familiar terrain, corp bookmarks. Granted there are still some issues with instant-propagation of bookmarks and alliance bookmarks... but please.

Have a little faith in CCP -- there is definitely a plan behind all this and the way the plan seems to be going, it's in favour of smaller gangs and puts more emphasis on each individual's capabilities. Not to mention the Grand Masterplan seems to favour one *real* person per spaceship, as opposed to "I am a one-man fleet flying eight vessels, because I'm cool like that".

Now, please respond to what I said instead of "he's a beacon of ignorant trololololl" for it does not reflect well on your cognitive abilities either. Write a proper response or don't bother at all.


You flatter me, but it's not half me - else some ISD would prob muzzle me by now.

Think of it more as "death by a thousand paper cuts". Such as:
- FCs now having to get another prober alt, if they don't have one already
- People sitting on their butts as scouts (read FC) gets into position
- WH travel takes a little over 2x as long and removes people form doing fun stuff and transforms them to a mobile bookmark
- Long range kiting fleets now become even more uncatchable

I typed all that cause you asked nicely, even though these points are exactly what we've been talking about for the last 80ish pages. Now, please listen to the two recordings with CCP Larrikin, and hear: a) all the concerns of other people who are going to suffer through it, and b) how clueless he sounds in terms of the side effects that outweigh the supposed benefits by orders of magnitude.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1740 - 2015-06-22 02:24:32 UTC
ManLee wrote:
seems logical, I mean Im all for the changes to slow down targets to stop the brainless blobs that occur without true pilot skill, but there is one flaw in this logic if a fleet is comprised of one Corporation and that corp has a BM A in Corp BM's technically every player in that fleet is then viable for that "BM A" so explain why cant they warp as fleet "Fleet Commanders, Wing Commanders & Squad Commanders will no longer be able to warp to anything a fleet member couldn’t warp to on their own." well they can warp to said "BM A" because its in their corp BM's? but seriously I do agree with it too many brainless F1 warriors who have no initiative, Good Times..


Care to explain how adding one more scout, who will prob be the FC's alt if it doesn't exist already, increase participation for the other 200+ fleet members?

And how you can guarantee that the opposite won't happen - that they will just sit around and get bored for longer as the second warp is set up to the primary warped prober?