These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[PROPOSAL] Ship fuel: cost to travel, limit travel distance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#41 - 2011-10-02 16:29:20 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us.


Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion.

What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?


Well, let's put it this way... when I enter K-space and find a hole 20 from Jita, that's a good day depending on how many lows are between me and high. I've gone 30 or more simply because the opportunity to do so was there.

A hole 6 from Jita... that's a party waiting to happen!


I will have to repeat: What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?

Perhaps you shouldn't go to Jita? WIth my proposal, it's likely more market hubs to develop - the harder to travel, the more likely people to buy and sell locally.

Also, I have specifically addressed the issue of logistics - the transport ships retain their current mobility for the most part. It should be rather obvious for anyone that cares to read the proposal and the discussion thread, that the proposed changes are directed mostly to combat ships.

Even considering that you escort your cargo ships through lowsec, still the movement of the fleet will be limited by the movement speed of the cargo ships, which would be the same as now.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#42 - 2011-10-02 16:31:45 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us.


Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion.

What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?


Well, let's put it this way... when I enter K-space and find a hole 20 from Jita, that's a good day depending on how many lows are between me and high. I've gone 30 or more simply because the opportunity to do so was there.

A hole 6 from Jita... that's a party waiting to happen!


I will have to repeat: What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?

Perhaps you shouldn't go to Jita? WIth my proposal, it's likely more market hubs to develop - the harder to travel, the more likely people to buy and sell locally.

Also, I have specifically addressed the issue of logistics - the transport ships retain their current mobility for the most part. It should be rather obvious for anyone that cares to read the proposal and the discussion thread, that the proposed changes are directed mostly to combat ships.

Even considering that you escort your cargo ships through lowsec, still the movement of the fleet will be limited by the movement speed of the cargo ships, which would be the same as now.


It's added expenses for no benefits whatsoever. Fortunately, they'll also not go and change every ship in the game to implement this, so let it die the inglorious death it deserves.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#43 - 2011-10-02 16:34:56 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It's added expenses for no benefits whatsoever.


Thank you for your opinion.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2011-10-02 19:33:12 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps it would have such effect, perhaps not. It's not really interesting and I won't discuss it, because I have never proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 25 T1 BCs for 5000AU.


Numbers are just numbers in this stage. I simply used it to make the analysis more quantitative.
(Your numbers are severely limiting as others have stated before, but that's not important either.)

Still, small gangs of less than 10 have to pay an arm to bring a tanker because each member counts,
while larger groups can keep their combat effectiveness by delegating fuel hauling duties to
non-combatants / less experienced pilots.


No, the proportion of required fuel support is the same regardless of gang size.


If you have ten guys, putting one in a tanker is going to have a much, much bigger effect than if you have a blob. In a blob, you're going to have enough people who have enough alts to fly the tankers without taking a combat pilot. In a small gang, this is less likely.

Quote:

Quote:
Can you explain how this trend encourages small gang activities?


The small gang is encouraged, respectively, that blob is discouraged at the stage before and at
forming, not that my proposal somehow allows you to solo pwn a blob, once the said blob is
formed.

Forget the current situation, when pilots idle in a single capital system. This is due to the ease
of movement - people can quickly assemble from their usualratting/mining/whatever grounds to the
capital and can also quickly disperse to their usual places for making money from the capital.

Instead, consider - you have 20 pilots in 20 systems ratting, 10 miners in this system, 10 more in
that system, 5 people exploring in random places, 5 doing a plex here, 7 doing a plex there, 2
following an escallation somewhere, 10 hauling stuff from empire, 20 fueling POSes and bridges, 10
camping a gate over there ...

If you're gonna wait for all of them to assemble ... well good luck.

On the other hand, the same applies to your red neighbours, they aren't likely to form a defence
blob very quickly, so why don't go with whatever you can assemble, instead of waiting a hour for the
blob to form?

And there's a second aspect, it's not only numbers, but also power. In my proposal, forming a
heavier blob is discouraged by limiting its range, compared to a lighter blob.

[/quote]

Except that people won't spread out like that. They'll be within a JB or two of the capital system, or they'll keep an alt there, or just jump clone. You'll still have people like me who don't rat, mine, plex, explore etc too.

And as for the same applying to the reds, well, why is that a good thing? What benefit would this have to the guys who fly out into red space looking for good fights? The guys who enjoy spanking home defence fleets, or who want something more challenging than a guy who logs out, docks or hides in a pos when reds get within five jumps? Why spend serious isk on fuel when you an just go and play a game that doesn't actively punish you for attempting to do something until the reds get bored and/or run out of fuel?
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#45 - 2011-10-02 19:41:45 UTC
Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.

We already know that you don't like the proposal.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2011-10-02 20:13:38 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.

We already know that you don't like the proposal.


And we already know that you outright refuse to listen to anyone pointing out it's obvious deficiencies, so let's both shitpost together :)
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#47 - 2011-10-02 20:37:34 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Karim alRashid wrote:
Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.

We already know that you don't like the proposal.


And we already know that you outright refuse to listen to anyone pointing out it's obvious deficiencies, so let's both shitpost together :)


Not empty quoting.

How did you Veterans start?
Ka'Dulin Hareka
Doomheim
#48 - 2011-10-02 20:45:04 UTC
This proposal is bad and you should feel bad for making it.
DeftCrow Redriver
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2011-10-02 21:21:16 UTC
Quote:

Yes and the well fueled solo pilot/gang outmaneuvering a hostile and empty blob. It works both ways.


Then please explain how you would properly fuel yourself, when you are in hostile territory, while using only one account.
(Hint: If you use more than one account, it's no longer solo.)
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#50 - 2011-10-02 21:34:48 UTC
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:
Quote:

Yes and the well fueled solo pilot/gang outmaneuvering a hostile and empty blob. It works both ways.


Then please explain how you would properly fuel yourself, when you are in hostile territory, while using only one account.


Obviously, you won't be able (or it won't be easy) to refuel yourself when you're in hostile territory. Just like you won't be able (or it won't be easy) to restock ammo, paste, get repairs, unload loot ...

Why do you presume that you're entitled to that?

Of course, same applies to hostiles on your territory.

Like I said, it works both ways.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#51 - 2011-10-02 21:38:19 UTC
In summary, do not consider "fueled warp" the default state.

The default state is painfully slow warp and bigger EvE.

The fuel is merely there as a little remedy.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#52 - 2011-10-02 21:39:28 UTC
Gonna stop writing now, because trolling has become excessive. Roll

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#53 - 2011-10-03 00:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Karim alRashid wrote:
In summary, do not consider "fueled warp" the default state.

The default state is painfully slow warp and bigger EvE.

The fuel is merely there as a little remedy.


When something that you use every time you undock is given the option of "being better" with a bit of ISK... especially when "better" = you can outmaneuver anyone who doesn't use/have it... it stops becoming optional.

And again... smaller groups will have less options than bigger groups in amassing the resources necessary to stockpile/get ISK for it.

How did you Veterans start?
Mara Villoso
Long Jump.
#54 - 2011-10-06 14:27:28 UTC
Just what eve needs: more micromanagement and logistical nightmares

Most definitely not supported.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#55 - 2011-10-07 12:27:11 UTC
Not supported.

It's hard enough to get logi pilots for an op can you imagine trying to find tanker pilots.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
uglybass
Spatial Idiocity Inc.
#56 - 2011-10-08 16:54:32 UTC
Horrible idea,
1) this would just generate massive upperhand to defending party owning stations nearby
2) I guess, everybody would just use "slow warp" until you really need to use fuel (atleast near to objective area)
3) hauling stuf (even in empire) would be a real pain (docking every now and then takes time)
4) capital ships.....
5) people would hunt for the fuel hauler only, leaving rest of the fleet middle of nowhere for lulz
6) RvB is for fun easygoing small ship stuff, join :)
7) manymanymany more reasons

BC/BS arent that expensive anyway + fight isnt over in 15 secs
Marcus Gideon
Triglavian Assembly
#57 - 2011-10-08 21:22:45 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
tl;dr

Ships require fuel to warp, industrial and T1 frigs require very little fuel, battleships require lots of fuel.

*stuff follows*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
This about sums up how I think most everyone feels about this idea...

Micromanaging fuel would only make this game such a pain in the a$$ that no one would want to play. It's bad enough we have to keep ammo counts, when many other games just assume you have bullets.
Hobogear
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2011-10-08 22:45:55 UTC
I like the idea of fuel, but not as a restrictive measure. Ships use fuel so i would be more of a fuel bay and a industrial item that could be harvested. Fuel would be cheap and abundant. Small isk sink.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2011-10-09 01:33:03 UTC
Hobogear wrote:
I like the idea of fuel, but not as a restrictive measure. Ships use fuel so i would be more of a fuel bay and a industrial item that could be harvested. Fuel would be cheap and abundant. Small isk sink.


Hint: if the isk goes to another player, it's not an isk sink.
Marcus Gideon
Triglavian Assembly
#60 - 2011-10-09 02:28:22 UTC
If you're looking for a tiny ISK sink, I've seen that our wallet has a catagory for Gate fees. We could just start charging people to jump from system to system. Or docking fees for NPC stations.

But trying to micromanage fuel would only make the entire game lame.

Imagine a spy behind enemy lines, cloaked up watching fleet movements. And then his tank runs empty, and he's left stranded.

Or imagine that fleet engaging another, only to realize that not everyone topped off before leaving and suddenly ships have to fall back and gas up.

Heck, you could run dry in the middle of a mission, and get picked off by the rats you were sent to kill. Or have your Barge/Exhumer floating adrift like the asteroids you were mining only moments ago.


Point being, fuel tanks would only further complicate an already overly complicated game.

It wouldn't make any aspect of the game "more fun", and isn't that what games are really about?