These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#3901 - 2014-10-02 18:43:57 UTC
Yuri Fedorov wrote:
Guys it realy isnt that bad at all. You just have to wait 55 minutes for a cap or 14 minutes for a JF and the fatigue is completely gone. You will have to balance between waiting for decay to disappear on longer trips and jumping quickly for short trips then clearing the decay while you are doing things at your destination.

It's perfectly reasonable to jump a JF in 2-4 minutes with the patch and only minimally raise the fatigue to where it depletes rather quickly after you arrive at your destination.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rDMQpeKE-HzGKmFRTR69HJCk4McHyHz020Qs4Rgg414/htmlview?pli=1&sle=true#gid=0

Have a look at the first column. It's not that bad at all.

This is why I feel they didn't go far enough with these changes. It's not a game changer if everyone just shrugs it off. We need a game changer.

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3902 - 2014-10-02 18:44:10 UTC
Endo Saissore wrote:
To everyone complaing about long jump fatigue:
There are two things you aren't considering.

A) You are not suppose to jump as soon as possible. If you wait out your fatigue then timers become a lot more manageable.

B). You are not suppose to use your caps to deploy to "hot zones" across the map. The days of owning vast amounts of empty space are over. Decide what space is important to you and live in it. Coalitions will be useless since you cant help eachother over vast distances. You know, like we've been asking for the past 2 years.

Hold strong CCP. THIS IS GOOD FOR NULLSEC.


JUMPCLONE

Not as good as right now but you can still manage to be available to a lot of different place. Just not all one after another. It's almost like CCP is trying to limit people while leaving them meaningful choice to make.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#3903 - 2014-10-02 18:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Talking to the logistics guys in our corp, it seems like the new meta will be to transport compressed ore from Jita and then build ships locally. Industrialists will be in low sec/0.0 heaven.

Will take longer per run, but there may be an overall time savings if the JF is filled to the top with compressed ore because it will take fewer runs. It might be more efficient to use a blockade runner as well (which apparently carries more in compressed ore than a JF carries in a load of frigates by a factor of 3-4 ?).
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#3904 - 2014-10-02 18:44:23 UTC

There is too much isk in eve, which has lead to capital proliferation. Rather then getting to the root of the problem - isk inflation, CCP is trying a gimmick that punishes players for playing the game. It would be much better if ccp simply sucked some of the isk from the game while making capitals and cyno jumping more expensive. The problem of capital proliferation would be addressed without the need for complex, unworkable gimmicks.

Personally, if it was up to me I would impose maintenance costs on ships; the bigger the ship the more the maintenance - after all, you got to pay the crew. By adding maintenance costs to ships, ccp would suck isk from the game while simultaneously limiting the amount of ships players own at any one time (because of cost concerns). Where this would obviously have the biggest impact is with capitals. Players would have to decide if they want to pay the recurring costs for a ship that they use relatively infrequently. If such costs were imposed I would allow players to "mothball" ships - essentially putting them to inactive status - where they sit in a hanger with no crew and no maintenance cost, but to take a ship from mothball status would require both time and isk.

In short, there are many ways to address the current capital situation without having to resort to gimmicky flag systems that punish people just for playing the game.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#3905 - 2014-10-02 18:44:51 UTC  |  Edited by: John McCreedy
Demonfist wrote:
John McCreedy wrote:
Greyscale, I think the biggest problem with this blog/proposed change right now is people who live in null sec simply cannot understand how this fits in with improving null sec? It feels like yet another nerf to 0.0, that's just had one nerf after another these past few years, rather than any kind of improvement. I don't think any of us can understand how this addresses the stagnation of null sec. Perhaps you might take the time to explain how this improves the lives of people who live there so we can understand the reasoning behind this.


This change lays the groundwork for player owned jump gates going in to correct the downsides that this creates. You can't "fix what is broken" if it isn't broken first. So they're taking the step of breaking it now. Sure it will be painful for all of us in the short term, but think bigger picture and it can only be a positive thing. I've seen other games push massive nerfs live that without them many other things they later added simply wouldn't have been possible.



Yes, yes, yes, player-built Warp gates. It's just a re-working of 2006 'Conquerable Warp gates'. That was scrapped because the only practical application was control of traffic and the implications of that where obviously bad. 0.0 already has warp gates so we don't need to build them, player-built gates are more likely to fit in with Wormhole space providing them with permanent links to Empire. Even if it allows null sec to connect with w-space it doesn't do anything to address the stagnation any more than nerfing jump drives does. The stagnation is caused by coalitions because Alliance-based income supersedes player-based income. When the reverse is true, coalitions will no longer be needed. All this change will do is make it strengthen coalitions, not weaken them.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
RDevz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3906 - 2014-10-02 18:44:56 UTC
How does applying any amount of fatigue to a ship which is incapable of taking part in combat (except in the case of extreme comedy fits) add anything to the game except for frustration and alt-tabbing to do something that's actually fun?

Quite clearly, we should fear the massed fleets of battle rorquals and jump freighters carrying combat ships to a war zone.

~
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#3907 - 2014-10-02 18:46:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Altirius Saldiaro
RDevz wrote:
How does applying any amount of fatigue to a ship which is incapable of taking part in combat (except in the case of extreme comedy fits) add anything to the game except for frustration and alt-tabbing to do something that's actually fun?

Quite clearly, we should fear the massed fleets of battle rorquals and jump freighters carrying combat ships to a war zone.

I think fatigue will apply to the pilot, not the ship.

Crew on the ship will be fatigued too I guess, but they dont matter.
Grookshank
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3908 - 2014-10-02 18:46:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Grookshank
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Grookshank wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Grookshank wrote:
Grookshank wrote:
Why do you want to kill Null-Sec travel for subcaps? With the proposed changes taking multiple jump bridges will be impossible. Image an Alliance living in different parts of one region.

To assemble a fleet it will already put a lot of their pilots on different timers and fatigues values. When they try to reach their goal, they will a) all have to wait for the people with the longest timers or b) drop people at jump bridges.

When poded players want to reship and rejoin the fleet, they will also have to wait out multiple timers.

How does disabling people to take multiple jump bridges make NULL-SEC less static?

The incredibly bad part of having the same changes aimed for caps, applied to subcaps and jump bridges is that you will kill/split of fleets. That's a horrible idea.


Can anyone please check, if this is really what it is going to be to use JBs? I made this assuming a 4LY jump per bridge.
http://imgur.com/K1Tq5fo


Or you could just fly there gate to gate in a group. You do realize that is still an option.

It is not really. As I outlined above, people live in different parts of the SOV. This seems to be what the general idea of "use your space" wants. They will rat/explore/mine/produce in a system farer away from a main staging system. When a fleet forup is called, they will have to travel in not so large groups/alone and will have to take JBs. That is what they are there for. To use your space, no? This will give them timers.
In the end people will arive at a staging with different timers. How is that a good change?


You could always have a jump clone in your alliance staging station...

I am not denying there is a solution to every problem.
This function though is an unintuitive clusterfuck. Having a CD is one thing, but this "lets multiply cd with x times the size of your mum", is intransparent and stupid. No new player will get it. We'll do teaching fleet on "how to calculate if you are allowed to take a jb"....
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#3909 - 2014-10-02 18:47:01 UTC
Everyone in the game: Please fix game nao?!
CCP: OK We Fix Nao.
Everyone in the game: NO! FIX BAD!

Shocked

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Aerich e'Kieron
Peace.Keepers
#3910 - 2014-10-02 18:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Aerich e'Kieron
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Don't worry, nullies: CCP only announced this to show us high sec carebear wussies that they wanted to nerf null somehow after all the hits high sec has taken. But it'll be radically changed, or eliminated completely: too many nullies in CSM, nullie friends of GMs, and nullies padding their subscription numbers.

Not to worry: most of it won't happen. Smile

Edit: speeling



The face of tangible fear.



That doesn't even make sense. Try a new "tears" approach. Although that doesn't work either, cuz I'm a high sec carebear wussy, remember? I give less than a poop about what is allegedly going to happen, because a) it ain't gonna happen and b) I'm REALLY enjoying the nullie tears in this thread. Twisted

On a side note: Is that you, Industrial? Blink



If you've been around for previous game mechanics changes in the past, you'll note that many were pushed through despite the many concerns and people who disagreed (although they were the minority, the same as they are in this case).

I mentioned fear, because I assumed much sarcasm with your post. I don't know you, and your post came across as being facetious by representing yourself with "us high sec carebear wussies".

If we can use history as any sort of metric to determine the likelihood of this patch occurring, the safe bet is that it will assuredly happen.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3911 - 2014-10-02 18:47:39 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Okay, so one comment from CCP Greyscale has been that Jump Fatigue will be capped at a month (lets say 30 days for simplicity).

Why? Why such a large cap? Even 30 days seems excessive.

Lets review the issue here: Power projection--i.e. the ability of a group of players to move very, very quickly across the entire galaxy of New Eden. This ability is one of the reasons why Null Sec is stagnating. Or so the popular theory goes. But lets accept this as true for the purposes of discussion.

The story is that Group A wont want to deploy their capitals even in their own space for fear that Group B will jump even a vast distance and drop on them. Somehow this results in more NAPs and agreements and big coalitions in null and for a more boring game.

So....if the above is the reaosn, what in the Hell is the necessity for setting the jump fatigue timer cap at 30 days?

Seriously, who thought that is reasonable? Are people so blazingly fearful of a hot drop that you have to threaten those who would be hot dropping with being unable to use their jump drives for 30 days!?!?!?! Really? Even for a jump freigher?

I was trying to do the math on this (Appendix A appears to have some errors in it) and if I got it right suppose you are a JF pilot doing logistics for your alliance. You have to jump 4 times each jump is exactly 4 LY (keeping the math simple). You need to make 2 trips (this means a grand total of 12 jumps, 4 in from empire, 4 back out, 4 back in). Now, using the math described in the Dev Blog, if you jump as soon as you are allowed too jump at the end you'll have a Jump Fatigue of over 7.6 million. Isn't exponential growth fun! Now, given that this time will go down by 0.1 per minute you'll need over 76 million minutes for that to go to zero. There are 8,760 hours in a year. Even if there were 100 minutes in an hour (it makes the math easier), that would be 87,600 minutes. So even after of waiting for a year, this one instance of moving stuff around would take several years to decay away.

So along comes the 30 day cap. But why? Why must that pilot be forced to wait 30 days? What purpose does that kind of wait serve. People using freighters and convoys. Don't be stupid. Here is what people will do. A "big" coalition will make doing logisitics work as important as showing up to a fleet fight. So now people who can't log in for a fight can pitch in by helping with logistics. Get 3 players each with 2 JF alts and an alliance/corp JF and problem solved. The characters in question will have minor jump fatigue levels and the logistics will get done pretty much as fast as before.

And lets reveiw...who will be "hurt" by this? A coalition like the CFC or Goons? Doubt it. Goons have shown time and again that they are very good at solving these problems. Even NC. and PL will likely adapt by expanding and emphasizing the importance of the logistics of living in Null. Older and more established entities will likely adapt quite nicely.

Smaller, newer alliances with a higher share of newer players with less resources on the other hand will suffer. They wont be able to get 3-4 people logging in with 2-3 JF alts. They might not be able to put so much of their limited resources into a singel investment (a JF). Their logistics will hampered far more than established groups.

The cap on jump fatigue needs to reduced dramatically. In fact, the formula could be re-worked so that it wont go as high as fast. If the idea is to limit force projection so that a hostile entity cannot drop in on another group from the other side of the galaxy, you do not need a cap of 30 days. That is just idiotic. The mere suggestion of it is idiotic. Don't be that idiot.


This so perfectly summarizes my feelings on the cap as well, I couldn't have said it better myself. The fatigue cap is understandable to the extent of delaying travel across eve, but what purpose does anything over even a 24 hour delay serve? The exponential growth on the formula is heavy handed and ill-thought out.


Doing a few rush jump will leave you commited there longer. There is strategic value into having a low jump fatigue in this change as it give you much more option than the guy who's next jump will leave him under CD for a week because he keeps deploying every time as soon as his CD is up.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#3912 - 2014-10-02 18:48:08 UTC
When are these changes hitting sisi?
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3913 - 2014-10-02 18:48:11 UTC
Demonfist wrote:
Everyone in the game: Please fix game nao?!
CCP: OK We Fix Nao.
Everyone in the game: NO! FIX BAD!

Shocked

Your definition of "everyone" is seriously off kilter.
RDevz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3914 - 2014-10-02 18:48:46 UTC
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
RDevz wrote:
How does applying any amount of fatigue to a ship which is incapable of taking part in combat (except in the case of extreme comedy fits) add anything to the game except for frustration and alt-tabbing to do something that's actually fun?

Quite clearly, we should fear the massed fleets of battle rorquals and jump freighters carrying combat ships to a war zone.

I think fatigue will apply to the pilot, not the ship.

Crew on the ship will be fatigued too I guess, but they dont matter.


s/ship/pilot in a ship/ then. The point still stands.

~
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3915 - 2014-10-02 18:49:13 UTC
Grookshank wrote:

I am not denying there is a solution to every problem.
This function though is an unintuitive clusterfuck. Having a CD is one thing, but this "lets multiply cd with x times the size of your mum", is intransparent and stupid. No new player will get it. We'll do teaching fleet on "how to calculate if you are allowed to take a jb"....


In this day and age, jumping will be a commitment so you have to teach people how to understand what kind of commitement their jump create.
Sentinel Eeex
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3916 - 2014-10-02 18:49:13 UTC
If any newer players ever wondered why EVE is alternatively called "spreadsheet online" - now you know :)
Zezima Gallente
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3917 - 2014-10-02 18:49:15 UTC
I like some of these ideas, but i think that the capital ships should only have fatigue. Why should Black ops take the heat when they can't push out nearly the amount of DPS that of a Capital can do.
Yi Hyori
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3918 - 2014-10-02 18:49:17 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

There is too much isk in eve, which has lead to capital proliferation. Rather then getting to the root of the problem - isk inflation, CCP is trying a gimmick that punishes players for playing the game. It would be much better if ccp simply sucked some of the isk from the game while making capitals and cyno jumping more expensive. The problem of capital proliferation would be addressed without the need for complex, unworkable gimmicks.

Personally, if it was up to me I would impose maintenance costs on ships; the bigger the ship the more the maintenance - after all, you got to pay the crew. By adding maintenance costs to ships, ccp would suck isk from the game while simultaneously limiting the amount of ships players own at any one time (because of cost concerns). Where this would obviously have the biggest impact is with capitals. Players would have to decide if they want to pay the recurring costs for a ship that they use relatively infrequently. If such costs were imposed I would allow players to "mothball" ships - essentially putting them to inactive status - where they sit in a hanger with no crew and no maintenance cost, but to take a ship from mothball status would require both time and isk.

In short, there are many ways to address the current capital situation without having to resort to gimmicky flag systems that punish people just for playing the game.



Need to look at this in a wider view.

This would punish industrialist who supply you with ships. Cost of maintenance on ships in storage? Well I am now going to make 1 frigate at a time to make sure they sell so I don't have to constantly pay for ships that aren't being sold.

This would also in turn increase prices of all ships because the cost of such are usually pushed on the consumer anyway. Overall this solution really doesn't help and is a narrow viewed bandaid fix that would cause too many issues.
Rarnak Ki
Twilight Hour Industries
Barely-Legal
#3919 - 2014-10-02 18:49:50 UTC
One big problem is that these changes have the unintended consequence of nerfing multiple jumps over short ranges, say back and forth between two nearby systems. That has nothing to do with force projection and yet will still incur the same penalties as jumping all the way across the universe.
Monica Selle
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#3920 - 2014-10-02 18:50:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Monica Selle
CCP Greyscale is there any chance at all you will address the concerns of Black Frog and PushX of not being able to get to many NPC null systems without going through sov null, or is this an intended consequence?