These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#201 - 2014-01-19 17:00:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.


It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother.

The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers (again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.




Well, you and I differ there.

One can certainly limit the power projection capabilities of supercaps without altering the capabilities of jump freighters.
Further, I would make this suggestion: If logistics is so bad (and I lived in Pure Blind, and have more than a passing knowledge of what was required), then could a number of these logistics issues be resolved by simply buffing the range and cargo space of jump freighters?

Null sec industry buffs, null sec logistics, and power projection I see as issues that can be addressed with separate tweaks, though perhaps at the same time.

I would suggest if null sec logistics were improved with better JF's, then the need to buff null industry again (they just got a huge slot buff) is not nearly as important.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#202 - 2014-01-19 17:00:27 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.


24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported.

Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings?

Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges!


Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant.

Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet.

Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much.

Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant).

The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#203 - 2014-01-19 17:02:14 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.


It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother.

The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers (again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.




Well, you and I differ there.

One can certainly limit the power projection capabilities of supercaps without altering the capabilities of jump freighters.
Further, I would make this suggestion: If logistics is so bad (and I lived in Pure Blind, and have more than a passing knowledge of what was required), then could a number of these logistics issues be resolved by simply buffing the range and cargo space of jump freighters?

Null sec industry buffs, null sec logistics, and power projection I see as issues that can be addressed with separate tweaks, though perhaps at the same time.

I would suggest if null sec logistics were improved with better JF's, then the need to buff null industry again (they just got a huge slot buff) is not nearly as important.


There's also the issue of forcing players into a game area they don't want to go to. Why shouldn't nullsec have the ability to largely support itself? I don't see what good purpose this serves in making the game experience of people who live in 0.0 any better.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#204 - 2014-01-19 17:04:09 UTC
Chirjo Durruti wrote:
Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:

- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable.
- hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request.
- hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt.


Then the first side that packs 500 guys into a system automatically wins.

"Wars" inevitably end up with a race to log into a system after DT, and then no fights occur.

No thanks.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#205 - 2014-01-19 17:06:29 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Stasis Leak wrote:
All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous.
Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure.
CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund.
If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list.
If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way.
In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver.
Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field.

CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway.

This is not an answer. It's an excuse. And a bad one at that.
The only way to counter the current drone assist exploit is to overpower it. If it is not possible to get enough firepower into the system because "They never even envisaged 4000 man fights" then drone assist must be dealt with. The discussion about whether or not it is broken is no longer an academic exercise. It's a fact.
I do not accept an excuse from any provider that they never envisioned that I would use their product exactly as it was intended (not to mention marketed) to be.
If your internet provider suddenly went down and excused himself by saying "I had no idea you would be viewing so many web pages", would you continue to pay for the service?
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2014-01-19 17:10:46 UTC
Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#207 - 2014-01-19 17:11:40 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

There's also the issue of forcing players into a game area they don't want to go to. Why shouldn't nullsec have the ability to largely support itself? I don't see what good purpose this serves in making the game experience of people who live in 0.0 any better.


Hold on there....we are diverging from the original thrust of the thread.
But the question I have is this: If Null is so bad right now, why do we have SO MANY people jumping into it?
From what I read, the goon's rental campaign has been a booming success.
Those people moved in based on current conditions, not future conditions.

I grant you that if you take away a big carrot, supercap power projection , from null sec, you have to give them something back in return. But when you start talking about null sec being able to operate independent of high sec, that is way too much being given back.

Eve then truly becomes two worlds, one that has everything, including all the elements that the poor one needs, like T2 materials, while the poor one has nothing to offer the rich one, except targets to grief, and taxes to gather (POCO's).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#208 - 2014-01-19 17:12:03 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I'm at a bit of a loss what caused this fight? Was it planned? (not trolling, really don't know)


CVA came in and blew up a cyno jammer, them being CVA nobody took much notice of them until N3/PL were dumping their capital blob into the system.

Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#209 - 2014-01-19 17:12:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
Stasis Leak:

We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.

So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.

People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.

And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.

As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.

Butterfly effect anyone?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#210 - 2014-01-19 17:15:22 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for.


Indeed.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2014-01-19 17:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Kagura Nikon wrote:
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.

What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun.



and how in hell doe shta thelp? They simply divide the SAME coalition in more alliances.

The means to make it happen is to make large groups inneficient. Only way that happens is if therte are mechanics toa create internal distrust,

MEchanic s that make you having many members just open you up to too many traitors possibilities.

You subdivide null sec into pockets again. With pockets you expand until you meet another entity that blocks your expansion.

From memory the systems were originally like this:

Image

It was beneficial to have a NAP with the blue and yellow but the red was so far away, you has to travel to low or through high to get to their area. There were only a couple of long regional jumps. Now everything is connected to everything else so there is increased reason to NAP everyone because they're threats if not NAP given ease of access.


Edit: also apologize for the really lame pic its 4:23am and got insomnia again :)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#212 - 2014-01-19 17:17:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.

Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#213 - 2014-01-19 17:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
Ive mentioned this in other thread.

problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.

Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.

Because with current sov mechanics...no matter how good HW you will have, no matter how good game coding will be, players will always push it to the limits and nothing will change. Same lag just wit more players in system.

Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..)

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Michael Escoto
Accretia Implants and Biotech Industries
#214 - 2014-01-19 17:30:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Escoto
Stasis Leak wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Stasis Leak wrote:
All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous.
Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure.
CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund.
If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list.
If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way.
In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver.
Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field.

CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway.

This is not an answer. It's an excuse. And a bad one at that.
The only way to counter the current drone assist exploit is to overpower it. If it is not possible to get enough firepower into the system because "They never even envisaged 4000 man fights" then drone assist must be dealt with. The discussion about whether or not it is broken is no longer an academic exercise. It's a fact.
I do not accept an excuse from any provider that they never envisioned that I would use their product exactly as it was intended (not to mention marketed) to be.
If your internet provider suddenly went down and excused himself by saying "I had no idea you would be viewing so many web pages", would you continue to pay for the service?


Infinity gave a reasonable answer really, as there are limits on how computer hardware works.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2014-01-19 17:32:46 UTC
Imagine if the fight took place in an asteroid belt with smartbombing battleships involved. Shocked The server would have sprouted legs, tour off it's wires, and walked out with breifcase in hand.

Now with the jokes aside, people exercise caution and humility when posting. Nothing is perfect, instead of ranting like children who dropped their ice cream cone, realize that smart constructive posting is what gets their attention. Post solutions not complaints.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2014-01-19 17:34:46 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Ive mentioned this in other thread.

problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.

Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.

Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..)

There are examples of this sort of thing already in some games.

Anyone played Aces High? To capture an airfield you need to kill a town away from an airfield, you also have infrastructure such as HQ's that knock out radar, ammunition, ability to field fighters and there are npc convoys and trains that you can blow up to reduce resupplies.

Of course its no implemented very well and everyone just blobs the hell out of airfields but its a example of 'out of system' combat to achieve a main objective.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#217 - 2014-01-19 17:41:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.


24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported.

Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings?

Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges!


Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant.

Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet.

Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much.

Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant).

The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.


The titan/jump bridge pilot isn't the one with the cooldown. The player that used the bridge (say, a dominix pilot), is the one that must wait 24 hours to bridge again. Players would only be able to bridge once every 24 hours, and would inherit a timer similar to the Jump Clone timer that can be seen through the character sheet.

This would keep bridging relevant, but not as overpowered as it is today, as one fleet could not bridge across the map in one sitting, but they could conceivably reach the next region over before needing to use stargates.

Would you support faction/player standings or security status having an effect on the amount of charges required to jump through a gate? It might give good reason to use more than the standard +/- 5 and 10s we see in current standings. You can graduate how badly you want your enemies to overpay for jumps in systems you own.

Katrina Oniseki
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#218 - 2014-01-19 17:47:01 UTC
Niding wrote:
Stasis Leak:

We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.

So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.

People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.

And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.

As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.

Butterfly effect anyone?


I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice.
However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them.
To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook.
There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters.
Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up?
I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#219 - 2014-01-19 17:53:15 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.

Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow.


I suppose you could put a timer on changing where your clone is stored.

Not a fan of the 24 hour cap jump drive limit. 2 hours seems a fair bit better.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2014-01-19 17:55:08 UTC
Stasis Leak wrote:
Niding wrote:
Stasis Leak:

We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.

So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.

People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.

And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.

As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.

Butterfly effect anyone?


I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice.
However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them.
To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook.
There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters.
Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up?
I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".

I like it.