These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Jump Fuel Consumption based on ship size

Author
Anthar Thebess
#1 - 2014-05-22 08:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Hello.

Currently there is no split between ship sizes.
Right now fuel consumption for travelling 1 Ly on all V jump drive skills looks like this :

Non Combat:
Jump Freighter : 775 isotopes
Ronqual : 500 isotopes

Combat:
Carrier : 500 isotopes
Dreadnought : 500 isotopes
SuperCarrier: 500 isotopes
Titan: 500 isotopes

Of course some of those ships have different jump range - still that's not the issue here.

Lets look now at the ship sizes :
EVE SHIP SIZES

For me make no sense that jumping the same distance for a carrier , and for a titan that is using the same amount of fuel.

What i'm proposing is to link fuel consumption on all those ships to their size, and use based on their size , and focus only on combat capital and super capital ships.

We are using Carrier as a base reference for this and keep current fuel requirements:

Carrier : 500 isotopes
Dreadnought : 600 isotopes *
* as this is still a capital ship using just a bigger model

As for super capital ships:
SuperCarrier: 2000 isotopes
Titan: 6000 isotopes

Those values are open to discussion - and adjustable in the upcoming change.
All those ships fuel bay needs to be expanded to keep their current range.

Why do i think this is good for game:
1. This kind of change will allow creating new content in the game , as moving super capital fleet will be much more expensive , and their deployment to some areas of space more permanent.
2. Capital ships will be much more spread out - because of the immense cost of re staging them.
3. Next B-R is more likely to happen. Current big blocks every day save their capitals and super capitals doping immense force to clear tackle. After this change it will take more time to gather necessary force , allowing escalation not only based on the TIDI Factor.
4. Eve will be more real - titan fuel requirements similar to carrier that is few dozen times smaller.

Yes you can call this supercapital nerf.
Still the nerf is not for the power projections they offer , but to the costs of their use.
After this change they will be as same useful on battlefield like before ( if not more deadly ) , they will have the same range.
Gather Irvam
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-05-22 08:57:05 UTC
+1
Cerneus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-05-22 09:16:38 UTC
Looks good.
Szczurek
Blackwater Task Forces
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2014-05-22 10:10:44 UTC
+1
Anthar Thebess
#5 - 2014-05-22 10:53:45 UTC
Thx for support.
Please post also why do you like or don't like this idea.
Thelonious Blake
Monk's Dream
#6 - 2014-05-22 11:09:26 UTC
I have participated in very few capital fights and 0 supercapital. Although that I like your idea that there should be some consistency in jump drive fuel consumption. Maybe base it on ship mass, not size: Shield supers? Nano titans?

Black Op fuel consumption should be adjusted too... Either by what you propose, or alternatively give them role bonus which would reduce their jump (and maybe even bridge) fuel consumption.
Anthar Thebess
#7 - 2014-05-22 11:29:16 UTC
Thelonious Blake wrote:
I have participated in very few capital fights and 0 supercapital. Although that I like your idea that there should be some consistency in jump drive fuel consumption. Maybe base it on ship mass, not size: Shield supers? Nano titans?

Black Op fuel consumption should be adjusted too... Either by what you propose, or alternatively give them role bonus which would reduce their jump (and maybe even bridge) fuel consumption.


That was my first idea, but to simplify lets just use base ship type , by their class:
- Carrier
- Dread
- Super Carrier
- Titan

As no one can deny big difference between capitals and super capitals.
At the same time size difference between super carrier and titan is to big to be ignored.

If we connect their mass to fuel usage, then each ship in a fleet could burn different amount of fuel , and i don't think that CCP is willing to accept this level of complexity in this game.

I don't say that this is good or bad , still it could be to much complex.
Creinar
Heimatar Softworks
#8 - 2014-05-22 14:41:59 UTC
From my point of view saying that it's because of their size is more like flavor text for a tooltip, but I fully support making Supercaps use more fuel than smaller vessels.
As the OP said, that should make owners of supercap fleets more hesitant to move large number of ships in short periods of time.
Anthar Thebess
#9 - 2014-05-22 19:47:17 UTC
Please keep this topic visible if you like this change.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2014-05-22 20:07:27 UTC
Sounds to me like it'd make it harder for smaller groups to throw thier big toys around, without affecting the bigger ones.


Would you increase the fuel bays of everything above a carrier, or force more midpoints, more painful logistics and more hurdles for anyone not in N3/PL/CFC to overcome?

Also, i'm pretty sure this would make the next BR-5 LESS likley, not more.
Anthar Thebess
#11 - 2014-05-22 21:27:51 UTC
Actually it will be quite different.
Small groups are not relocating so often.
So they will have bigger chance to achieve something when titans will be spread out.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2014-05-22 22:45:43 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Actually it will be quite different.
Small groups are not relocating so often.
So they will have bigger chance to achieve something when titans will be spread out.




And why would titans be spread out? You'd be FORCING them to stay closer to where the fuel stashes are.
Anthar Thebess
#13 - 2014-05-22 22:58:09 UTC
No this change will force to keep titans and supercarriers spread out to have bigger area covered for smaller ops and subcaps bridging.

Sooner or later someone will be caught in a super , and gathering all nearby will take enough time for thighs to escalate.

Still main goal of this change is to change this nonsense that a titan is using the same amount fuel as a much more smaller carrier.
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#14 - 2014-05-22 23:14:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Howabout make the fuel consumption be 1 unit per light year per 2250 tons mass? Lets see how that plays out:

Fuel for 1ly jump

Sin: 57
Widow: 61

Nidhoggur: 451
Chimera: 528

Rorqual: 524

Nidhoggur: 501
Phoenix: 587

Hel: 627
Wyvern: 734

Ragnarok: 923
Leviathan: 1080

On second thought, maybe the mass of the supercapitals should go up. Like a lot.
Also, howabout keep the jump fuel bays within a class to the same size, so that the smaller and faster variants have a small jump range advantage as well?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2014-05-23 01:08:10 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
No this change will force to keep titans and supercarriers spread out to have bigger area covered for smaller ops and subcaps bridging.

Sooner or later someone will be caught in a super , and gathering all nearby will take enough time for thighs to escalate.

Still main goal of this change is to change this nonsense that a titan is using the same amount fuel as a much more smaller carrier.



No, this change will keep supers and non bridge titans securely locked up in supercap staging systems, where the fuel stores live. Why risk going somewhere else if you're suddenly using fifty times more fuel and you don't have a fuel store on hand?

Why do you think people will spread out their supers instead of keeping them at centralised staging systems with huge fuel stores, like they do currently?
Mallori
REPUBLIKA ORLA
C0VEN
#16 - 2014-05-23 06:58:00 UTC
Probably you should ask about the Jump Idea.

In my opinion it should be related to the ship mass with the cargo, something like the jump through the wormhole.

Janek666
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-05-23 07:24:36 UTC
That would be a one small step in a right direction. This, plus other machanics should be applied ASAP to make huge rentier empires unprofitable.
Anthar Thebess
#18 - 2014-05-23 09:09:33 UTC
This is not only to reduce "big blue wonder" , but only to make all thing more sensible.

Right now in eve terms the same amount of fuel use a "eco city car" and "16 wheel truck" while moving from point A to Point B
Colonel Mortis
Coven Of Witches
C0VEN
#19 - 2014-05-23 09:12:28 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Howabout make the fuel consumption be 1 unit per light year per 2250 tons mass? Lets see how that plays out:

Fuel for 1ly jump

Sin: 57
Widow: 61

Nidhoggur: 451
Chimera: 528

Rorqual: 524

Nidhoggur: 501
Phoenix: 587

Hel: 627
Wyvern: 734

Ragnarok: 923
Leviathan: 1080

On second thought, maybe the mass of the supercapitals should go up. Like a lot.
Also, howabout keep the jump fuel bays within a class to the same size, so that the smaller and faster variants have a small jump range advantage as well?


Yes in this case supercapital ship mass is a bit low.
Zikko Zinn
Malleus Caelum
Northern Coalition.
#20 - 2014-05-23 09:27:08 UTC
+1
123Next pageLast page