These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#4121 - 2014-10-02 20:19:56 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I will keep saying it over and over fatigue should be scaled by ship size and not a flat rate. And the decay should be faster based on size too. Punish big ships not small ones


I think they are afraid of our subcap apex force projected by jump bridges.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#4122 - 2014-10-02 20:21:37 UTC

Wouldnt it be better to put a "stress" on ships itself when jumping, so like first jump you do, max range, and every jump after is shorter and shorter. If you can have multiple toons to do the jumping anyways, wouldn't it be better to put the penality on the ships itself?



Rarnak Ki
Twilight Hour Industries
Barely-Legal
#4123 - 2014-10-02 20:21:37 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
For folks wanting longer range JFs / Rorqs to make logistics easier:

Keeping them the same range as all other capitals means you introduce geography back into EVE, which hasn't been around for a long long time. It means that you can interdict supply lines used by your opponents. It means you can actually lay siege to the castle.

These are all good things.

If you want to get around this, use blockade runners and BLOPS. But, of course, this would mean you would need to be selective about what you bring in and out of null, which means it's no longer easy mode. To that I say: HTFU.


Sorry but an alliance who hauls 10+million m3 of stuff to null sec every week isn't going to do it in blockade runners. Half the stuff won't even fit in one. Even if the materials for the t2 ships/mods/ammo were brought instead of the actual items, it would still be the same.

Then think about how this affects small corps running pos based industry in quiet areas of low sec that are not even going to have the man power any more to make the jf jumps required to manage the business.

Exponentially increasing the time and cost it takes to transport goods (which already takes an enormous amount of time, isk, and risk) is going to have a drastically bigger impact than the nerf to the other capitals. It will also disproportionately affect smaller entities who aren't even engaging in force projection.

The right fix to this won't have these unintended consequences. That this solution does means that it is not the right one for the game.
Wax Deteis
Babylon Knights
#4124 - 2014-10-02 20:22:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Wax Deteis
I really can not believe that it's true ...

You want to increase the fluidity of the territories, but you slow travel.
You want to stimulate the economy and the declining industry, but you slow the exchanges, which has exactly the opposite effect.

"Hey, we banned car tires, it will facilitate trade !!!"

Breaking News: Social Plan at Black Frog! Massive layoffs are feared.

I can hardly believe that you really are serious ...

If you want to promote the industry, people need to produce everything from everywhere. Alas it is not with the alchemy that can do anything.

Logistics industrial ships, are you really serious? Did you really just one day build something one day, or it's been so long that you have a magical item interface generator that quantities of the bill of material just got worthless numbers ?

You want to noobify the game. Ok, but you will cut you from old multi paid accounts.

In the old time, you had a real economist in the CCP crew. You can call him back as fast as possible, because you are going to kill the game.
You are killing the golden goose.

--

So long, and thanks for all the fish
Iece Quaan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4125 - 2014-10-02 20:22:51 UTC
If there is an optimal jump frequency that you've calculated as being the best for the fatigue curve..

I don't see why you wouldn't just set a static jump cooldown timer to that value and just call it a day.

Why use this insane system where people can lock their characters for 30 days? As a penalty for playing your game? In what world does this make sense?
Kirasten
Perkone
Caldari State
#4126 - 2014-10-02 20:23:03 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
Kirasten wrote:
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
Stay focused everyone. Keep the balanced ideas coming in. If we work hard CCP will meet us half way with changes we can all agree on.


ROFLMAO

Keep thinking that.



You dont know me well. I was the one who spearheaded the movement to keep 3 fighter per carrier level on super carriers.


I don't think almost anyone here gets it. CCP doesn't care what you think of the changes or how hard this will make your lives. They WANT to make your lives harder. They aren't going to compromise when you tell them that their plan is succeeding.

What they DO want to know is how any of the proposed changes might break other mechanics. For example, how someone could try to sell a pilot with a year of jump fatigue. Point taken and addressed.

To give another example from the Hyperion wormhole changes, it was pointed out that if a wormhole only opened when someone actually jumped through it, lots of wormholes would remain unopened as scouts looked at what the system was, and refused to jump through. Since CCP's goal was to increase connectivity, this mechanic was broken and they changed it so that it would open eventually after warp.

I say again. They WANT to make your lives harder. Just like that wanted to make our lives harder with Hyperion.

@CCP - After seeing these changes to null/low, I understand Hyperion now. I get it. Well, except for the frigate wormholes I get it.
Doral Reinert
Rabid Dogz Mining
#4127 - 2014-10-02 20:23:47 UTC
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4128 - 2014-10-02 20:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Suzuka A1 wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Fonac wrote:
You've nerfed rapidly deploying over vast distances to a complete impossibility.


Hopefully, yes.


I've always had the opinion that anything should be possible in EVE, maybe extremely difficult/painful but still possible.


Jump gates while you wait your timer and you will get to your destination even faster. It's difficult and possibly majorly painful but still faster.

Doral Reinert wrote:
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .


Totally not gonna create a buch of holding alliance.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4129 - 2014-10-02 20:24:50 UTC
What a bunch of cry babies.

I'm going to tell my mommy.
Kurita I
Illicit Technologies
#4130 - 2014-10-02 20:25:27 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I will keep saying it over and over fatigue should be scaled by ship size and not a flat rate. And the decay should be faster based on size too. Punish big ships not small ones


SO MUCH THIS

How is adding a TIMER to sub-cap bridging going to INCREASE fights.

Seriously HOW HOW HOW HOW
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#4131 - 2014-10-02 20:25:28 UTC
Sentinel Eeex wrote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Sentinel Eeex wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
.02 more isk to add...

Remember also this is the first set of changes. That means while you are looking at this and going 'omg x..y... and z will be harder" there is a chance, a very good chance, that CCP has changes that will make x..y.. and z.. be trivial after they are all implemented. This was just the easiest change they can do. And after looking at metrics due tot eh 6 week cycle they will have time to modify and adjust or eve roll back if it sucks. The point is to take a chill pill and wait till its on tq before you fully judge if it will work or not.

And this reminds me of the old saying, everyone who for years complained about force projection and wanted ccp to fix it, be careful what you wish for.


Do you realize that they maybe spent a day thinking about these changes before making a devblog here?

They didn't even think about some most basic issues, embarrassed themselves, and you expect that they have some good/better changes already planned, for the future?

Heh.


If you're going to quit the game over these changes. I call dibs on your stuff.


I can not imagine the thought process in your tiny little head that converted my post into "I will quit the game over these changes".



Key word in my post is "if."

I'm sorry you're too caught up in the moment, continue to complain about the changes loudly.
Hellusius
Siesta Inc.
#4132 - 2014-10-02 20:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hellusius
A short story from the lonely nomads out there Smile.

Quote:
I began this post to create, not destroy

We are in a very smale scale corporation with some ties. We don't always care for voilence but it is often a nesecary evil.
We tend to have teeth when the occasion is ideal but we know numbers will overcome us adopting a natural defensive and opertunistic posture when it comes to combat (specially in nul (which we love btw)).

We intended Siesta because EVE gives us the freedom, not the constraints to explore the stars, people and paridises to call our own. Untill it is due for change. Currently we are sittuated in both lowsec and its bordering nullsec. We do PI, occasional ratting, plexing, exploration and shooting spaceships, we like it. Our natural affection with our nomadic behaviour aims our sight: to those jumpdrives that offer us their trust, we are greater benefactors. Geting our supplies out of null and lowsec to complete the circle in high. Small masters of prosperity, so to speak. Blockade runners and industrial for low to highsec, a capital carrier and Jump freighter for null to low. We are lucrative by nature and seek out wormhole connections for example to take our Deep space transports with some added risk for the compensation of our fuel costs

From new home to home, we would built empires and strategies. Reach hieghts that were once unimaginable.

Now the spread of change takes an eye on will. our intrests might align in new suns caused by more jumps and longer waits, but with others colide with the force of suns. Their gates on our dangerous nomadic travels with our lone eye candy capital ships.

We might be much more powerfull than we think and strive for new ideas and ways to play and have fun, with or without with these changes.

Time is so precious, and greed so destructive.
Your choice will make a difference
because all these changes are ours
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4133 - 2014-10-02 20:25:55 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .

Say hello to goonswarm 1, goonswarm 2, goonswarm 3, goonswarm 4, goonswarm 5, goonswarm 6, goonswarm 7, goonswarm 8, goonswarm 9, goonswarm 10, goonswarm 11, goonswarm 12, goonswarm 13, goonswarm 14, goonswarm 15, goonswarm 16, goonswarm 17, goonswarm 18, goonswarm 19, goonswarm 20. etc.
Klown Walk
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#4134 - 2014-10-02 20:26:18 UTC
I rather have lots of smaller alliances controlling a few systems, being active in them and actually fight back when anyone enters their system instead of docking up or warping to a pos like how it is currently with the massive alliances and coalitions, so for me this is a great change.
Myopic Thyne
Accounts Payable.
#4135 - 2014-10-02 20:26:41 UTC
Alrighty, CCP, since as a company, you're entirely too lazy to bother to actually produce good designs, I'll do your work for you, and explain how it works and solves your problems without making your entire playerbase cry.

To start with, scrap every single thing you've already suggested, there's literally nothing salvageable here.

Now, our goals are:

  1. Limit the speed at which players can move across the whole of new eden via jump drives.
  2. Impact large scale utilization of capitals that gives a numbers superiority advantage to large groups.
  3. Keep tedious gameplay out, while still making capital use meaningful.
  4. Keep uncontested jumps easy, but allow others to be made more difficult.


Core Parts:
The core parts of the jump mechanic are Jump Fuel, "Jumping", Cyno Fields, Capital Ships, and Cyno Ships. So let's look at what we can play with, if there's anything else we can do to improve the overall design playability of eve while we're at it.

Existing Issues:

  • Jump Fuel is pretty annoying as it is, it'd be nice to simplify that.
  • Jumping is instant, when doing design work "instant" is one of the evil words, like 'invulnerable' and 'infinite', so let's see if we can't fix that.Proper utilization of jump requires you to use an out-of-game tool, and has since the inception of jumping. This is inherently unacceptable and needs to be remedied.
    Cyno Fields are instant, when doing design work "instant" is one of the evil words, like 'invulnerable' and 'infinite', so let's see if we can't fix that.
    Capital Ships have a number of issues, both in being over-specialized and over-generalized or simply ridiculous, but those are balance changes mostly for another time. However they're reliant on carry jump fuel, which we discussed, and getting your group to work together is very confusing, because you have to trust everyone has the same level of Jump Drive Calibration. Also, jump range as it stands is indeed quite long, but in-and-of itself, not a direct issue.
    Cyno Ships are almost always disposable and generally irrelevant in the process, this is our biggest lever for improvement!


Let's start with the biggest lever, Cyno Ships, and while we're at it, let's make jump fuel more economically balanced, and less of a chore for groups with smaller logistics groups. Let's make a new item, The Jump Fuel Block, the goal here is similar to what fuel blocks did for towers, to simplify the mess of fuels you need to stock by taking 1 Liquid Ozone, 1 of each Isotope, and producing 4 fuel blocks. The size of these block also becomes a lever, but I suggest to start out we keep them relatively small and adjust as needed, start with .5m3 per block. These blocks will be used for lighting Cynos as we move through the rest of this change.

Now, let's move to the actual act of jumping: Currently jumping is instant, and as the crow flies. Let's change this, make jumping gate-based. Travel from origin point to destination follows a route through the gate network. Each jump through the gate network takes 60s (20s with JDC V) after the initiating pilot has selected a cyno to jump to, during which time a projection of the ship that is jumping in appears at the beacon. This allows people who are there time to decide if they want to kill the Cyno Ship, or let things come on through. Black Ops will see a 90% reduction in time, to 2s when jumping or bridging, to keep them as a quick-strike utility platform. If the Cyno is destroyed during transit, the capital ship comes out of it's jump in whatever system it would have been in while travelling through the gate network, at a random point in that system. This route can be interrupted by Cyno Jammers. This necessitates a need to change the current Mobile Cyno Jammer to the Emergency Mobile Cyno Jammer, keeping most of it's current stats with 2 notable changes:

  1. The Jammer is now System Wide.
  2. The Jammer now lasts 12 hours.

We also will need another new mobile module, which is a 'permanent' version of the Emergency Mobile Cyno Jammer, and functions much like a mobile depot, lasting one month if not disturbed, when it is reinforced, it ceases jamming and only one can be placed per system. When a Mobile Cyno Jammer (new, long-lasting version) is destroyed, it creates a husk, which prevents anchoring the long-lasting variety for 2 days, but not the Emergency variety.
If, at the time of jumping, a cyno jammer of any of the three varieties exist, that part of the route is not valid, and will be avoided, much like an avoidance waypoint would be normally in auto-pilot, which will now feature a 'Show Jump Route" as well as the fastest and safest routes.

Cynos and Cyno ships will change heavily with this system, Cynos will gain a 40s spool up time, to ensure that under peak conditions, you can't have less than 1 minute notice of incoming capitals. Cyno Ships themselves will now carry jump fuel, making them an investment risk, and limiting the amount of ships that can jump to them, by requiring an amount of fuel blocks equal to Jumps Traveled * (mass of ship / 1000000) * Modifiers, modifiers include Jump Fuel Conservation, and a global modifier that can be applied to help move the amount of fuel blocks required up or down, making them a dual-lever system for easy adjustment. These size changes should push Cyno Lighting into the realm of Deep Space Transports and the like as the need for tank and large cargo bays make cynos much harder to get lit. These changes should also effectively limit the number of ships able to jump to a single cyno. This also means that moving to prepared locations is easy, and unprepared ones, notably harder with these slower cyno ships.

Overall this system makes uncontested Jumping easy, contested jumping hard, doesn't cripple small entities, and doesn't grant massive power comparatively for large entities.

Ran out of space for more text...
Wexa Tion
daddys little fslur
boo hoo fslur i don't care
#4136 - 2014-10-02 20:27:43 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .


And how would that change anything on a coalition level? They would simply just make more alliances to hold the space.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#4137 - 2014-10-02 20:28:11 UTC
So far I see 3 undeniable benefits to these changes -

1. An end to PL hotdropping craziness...they will need to be strategic now about drops, and only hit high value targets

2. The ability to camp renters on the fringes of sov without getting hotdropped. Sure the big alliances can send subcap fleets, but that takes time and is easier to monitor. Who is going to pay rent if they will get incessantly camped without any intervention by the nominal sov holder?

3. An end to the absurdly easy transportation of goods by Jump Freighters. Yes, they will force people to actually think about logistic, and will raise ship/mod prices - but that is great. Ships will be valuable again, they won't just be an easily supplied and infinitely replaceable commodity. People on the fringes of nullsec, and hopefully everywhere else, will actually feel a measure of pain when losing ships, and will be more strategic about committing them.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#4138 - 2014-10-02 20:29:37 UTC
Rarnak Ki wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Rarnak Ki wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Rarnak Ki wrote:
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.


protip... use the stargates for short range trips.

a nano fit niddy can get up to 6.5 AU per second...



Except that using gates is suicide unless you are in a fleet. Sorry, I am not jumping my jump freighter repeatedly through low sec gates. That would just be idiotic. The ability to use a jump drive to move large amounts and high value goods is essential to this game.


man you can blind jump ships threw 0.0 today and not die... I did this a month ago in a non fit Domi just for the lolz in stain went 40 jump without seing a soul.

All this means is you will have to use a scout instead of a cyno alt... and keep an eye out for known blops and you will be fine...



Except that I am not talking about jumping through back-end null sec systems. I am talking about shipping goods from Jita into low/null sec. Tell me how many of those entry points aren't regularly camped to the point that even a mid-size fleet escorting a jf would have trouble breaking through? That takes an activity that right now has virtually zero risk (as it should for spending 7 bil on a jf) and only modest amounts of time, to an activity that has almost zero chance of success (using gates) or the alternative: cyno jumping which now is going to take ages to do even basic work. Besides, if we make people fleet up every time we need to do a jf run, well, this game will be destroyed by boredom in a heartbeat.

Also, you all complain about inflation, wait until there are massive supply shortages because half of the logistics pilots throw in the towel.


Jump your freighter past the gatecamp, then carry on with gates. Be rate.
Lord Podgelark
Veni Vidi Vici Inc
The Initiative.
#4139 - 2014-10-02 20:30:01 UTC
You all realise this is a standard ploy of Governments?

You leak info that is designed to be extreme and then when it comes to implementation you back off a bit so it doesnt feel so bad.



JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#4140 - 2014-10-02 20:30:05 UTC
Ruffio Sepico wrote:

Wouldnt it be better to put a "stress" on ships itself when jumping, so like first jump you do, max range, and every jump after is shorter and shorter. If you can have multiple toons to do the jumping anyways, wouldn't it be better to put the penality on the ships itself?






See at least from a lore standpoint I actually think that sounds much better as well. It's entirely plausible to say that jump drives cause quite a bit of stress on the ship itself. Be it to its systems, or even to its structure directly.