These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue

First post
Author
Thirdsin
Sanctuary of Shadows
Triumvirate.
#41 - 2015-08-06 15:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Thirdsin
Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.

So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?

Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".


Grabbing popcorn.
John DuWitt
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#42 - 2015-08-06 15:57:35 UTC
I would ideally like to see jump timer replaced with a reduced utility modifier. Ex: Instead of being forced 7 days to jump, you simply have a x% reduction in all damage, remote reps, self reps, nuet ability, etc). And limit it to a max of something reasonable like 50%. Let us keep jumping for fights. What would CCP think of something like this change?
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#43 - 2015-08-06 16:00:05 UTC
What is the expected logistices role of Carriers at this point?

These ships are literally named for their ability to carry and move other ships across space.

The jump changes appear to have greatly limited the usefulness of this ability. The trend appears to be more tilted toward the use of Jump Freighters to move all object.

The logistical difficulty of even moving carriers between regions is limited by chokepoints in certain areas and 10+ jump paths, is leading to greatly increased insurance fraud and moves that often simple leave capitals behind for the next inhabitants.

What is CCPs vision for how carriers are used & moved across New Eden?
Ponder Stuff
NRDS Anonyme
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#44 - 2015-08-06 16:00:59 UTC
The affect that jump fatigue had on my playstyle was servere and although a lot of you dont agree with hotdropping as a passtime in eve, its no longer possible to play that way with the time i have available in an evening. Since my after work wind down (eve) has changed for the most part to other more time efficent games because of fatigue, I no longer really have the motivation to play at weekends as any action i get then may stop me playing at all for the next week if i do get the chance.

In the face of recent events, I would like to think that CCP values its vets and following the anouncement of this thread i am excited to see the playerbase respond with its suggestions and possibly even the chance to play eve again the way i love it. Taking much loved content from your bread and butter players with 4+ accounts is not a good buisness stratergy... if there are no players left, who will buy the skins your making all your money on right now? 30 day trial chars? i think not.

I like the idea of removing fatigue in exchance for an extended fixed jump drive cooldown period and ranges for dreads, supers and carriers to be extended back to its old value. This would alow the big TiDi entities to get to their fights within a reasonable timeframe and move ops to be less painful for smaller groups. It would also bring back more local hotdropping and blops with triage as it is know, loved and feared throught eve. With the recent removal of the need to fight for sov or indeed anything at all, I think that the jump changes are just another way of stopping fights happening. It was these huge super brawls that got eve in all the news and setting records dont forget! I also hate the lack of options available on jump routes now, not only has a move op to help a friend taken me almost 2 weeks i have to use systems now perma camped and set up to catch heavy assets.

I know were not desputing thera here, but with that WH acting as a instant free no fatigue titan bridge to almost anywhere in eve, any changes to titan bridge/jump range and the fatigue it generates is minimal as its no longer the fastest way of getting to a fight unless its at very close "intended" ranges.




Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#45 - 2015-08-06 16:11:54 UTC
Thirdsin wrote:
Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.

So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?

Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".


Grabbing popcorn.


We're starting with player involvement so when we sit down at the summit we're working off of all of this instead of just our pieces. We can always shut it down and go and make decisons but I like it this way. We've already started so we might as well keep going.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#46 - 2015-08-06 16:15:18 UTC
If you ain't gonna listen to me the first time I'm not gonna tell you again.

Not today spaghetti.

Haidere
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#47 - 2015-08-06 16:17:57 UTC
Has CCP given any consideration to removing jump fatigue and merely having ~5 min reactivation timer?
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-08-06 16:19:30 UTC
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3

metalravenous
Pyramid Celestial
Everything Is Going to be Alt-Right
#49 - 2015-08-06 16:20:35 UTC  |  Edited by: metalravenous
Have consideration been made to make jumping a bit more unsafe? As it stands now you can undock, wait for session timer and then jump, this makes using a jump freighter between station systems virtually risk free save for an unlucky bump. This applies to other classes as well. A timer where a black ops fleet can't insta jump to a super tanked T3 would give time for a mining or ratting fleet time to respond to the cyno. In both cases a timer would make really safe actions unsafe and make EVE a bit scarier and riskier.

Also T2 Bowhead with similar jump range to JF?
Scott Ormands
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#50 - 2015-08-06 16:21:30 UTC
Haidere wrote:
Has CCP given any consideration to removing jump fatigue and merely having ~5 min reactivation timer?


Most capitals are already going to be on grid for 5 minutes anyways (siege or triage cycle) but something like 10 minutes would be a more balanced idea
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#51 - 2015-08-06 16:21:48 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3



We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

drunklies
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-08-06 16:28:38 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3



We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.


This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time.

Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?
Anthar Thebess
#53 - 2015-08-06 16:33:52 UTC
1. Do you consider creating new smuggler gate connections, to remote regions like Paragon Soul , Omist , Outer Passage, Cobalt Edge, Branch , Deklein , Period Basis. At current jump range , those regions are to far for logistics to be contested by any one.

2. Do you think that is possible to introduce very expensive (price similar to carrier hull) capital rigs that will increase jump range.
Yes this is only to bring back carrier ship hauling. You need to have 3-4 midpoints to move yourself in 1 region ( Stain).

3. If you consider reducing even more Jump Freighter range , will you also adjust map ( add few systems, move them a bit ) so regions like Stain (and regions that use Stain as logistic midpoint) , will not be cut off from NPC supply lines. Without NPC supply route , for many groups , the only possible way to have logistics running will be only by having more blue , all along the route.

4. Do you think that giving dreadnoughts increased range , and fatigue reduction can bring those ships back to more common use. They are defenseless without sub capital support.
davet517
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#54 - 2015-08-06 16:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
What are the overall statistics for capital and super-capital participation in combat, before and after phoebe? Have they been participating in fights more, less, or about the same? Some of us are certainly using them less. Have they seen more use by smaller entities who are less afraid of a response from one of the major alliances?

What aspects of the player base's response to Phoebe are what you expected, and what has surprised you?

Which goals of yours for introducing phoebe are being met, and which aren't, and what adjustments do you think you could make to meet more of them?
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2015-08-06 16:37:20 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Thirdsin wrote:
Generally these outreach efforts are a follow up. They are follow up to conversations and conclusions already reached by the internal audience (CCP/CSMs) and now validation of findings and discovery of areas of community push-back is done with the 'round table'.

So, if we could cut to the chase - What changes have already been tentatively announced by CCP or suggested by the CSMs?

Obviously wing and a prayer for an actual answer here since it seems every time a CSM talks about changes they start with "I'm under NDA, but my personal feeling is...".


Grabbing popcorn.


We're starting with player involvement so when we sit down at the summit we're working off of all of this instead of just our pieces. We can always shut it down and go and make decisons but I like it this way. We've already started so we might as well keep going.


But what are we questioning? We are asking CCP about our experiences over the last 8-9 months?

Asking for stats and hearing about what CCP's opinion is does nothing to clarify how the player base feels. What we see in this thread are people morphing examples of what they don't like into questions. So the answer that CCP Larrikin gives, doesn't actually matter. The important thing is that the intent behind the question is noted.

An event where CCP does more talking than listening does not seem like a good starting point.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-08-06 16:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
drunklies wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3



We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.


This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time.

Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?


The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer.

Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far.

I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?"

I would also like to see "What successes has CCP identified with the new jump mechanics?"
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#57 - 2015-08-06 16:37:43 UTC
drunklies wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3



We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.


This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time.

Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?


I doesn't hurt if people want to answer them.

Agendas can be valid, yes. I believe Rob was more speaking of nonproductive agendas aka trolling or just snarky anger. A question and proposal isngreat. How and why you got there is also useful to me due to the thought processes.

Consider this a mingling of our normal soundboards in a more townhall format. We did not want to restrict acess as we need to in an open discussion forum. This is a big topic but we are going to take it on. We would like to be as smooth and productive as possible along the way.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#58 - 2015-08-06 16:39:01 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:


The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer.

Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far.

I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?"


Dont worry until we call the whole thing off because of one persons approch. ;)

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

gunny Aubaris
brain drain corp
#59 - 2015-08-06 16:44:21 UTC
What are the top 3 issues that CCP feels needs addressing in the next balance pass.
drunklies
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-08-06 16:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: drunklies
Rob Kaichin wrote:
drunklies wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
I think it might be worth screening the questions to remove the deliberately agenda'd ones. Entering a question that submits the answer itself isn't going to do anything valuable, and will just waste CCP's time.

For my own questions:

The changes have seen a renaissance for the use of Capitals by low-sec groups in low-sec. Does CCP think this is a good thing?

If they plan to increase jump range, (with attendant impacts on low-sec), how do they plan to mitigate this?

Also, Sugar, you tease, sneaking this around :P. <3



We are making a master document of questions not just reading the forum posts one by one. It is not a single persons project which means all of our varied views will keep the topic at the top and not agendas... except for the agenda of looking at this mechanic.


This is a great idea, but people can ask a valid question and propose a possible answer at the same time.

Will you also be trawling for potential mechanic's changes from this thread to supplement questions?


The problem comes when people answer their own question, as if it is the only answer.

Still, I think Ammzi has the best question so far.

I'd like to see an answer to "Which issues can CCP currently identify with the existing jump mechanics?"

I would also like to see "What successes has CCP identified with the new jump mechanics?"


These are good questions, but there seems little point in only trying to find out what CCP thinks about these mechanics.

Generating additional questions with either possible mechanics or questions about implementation so far.

Edit: also, I did sat proposed, but I take you point on people saying their way is the only way.