These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kalissis
#4141 - 2014-10-02 20:30:45 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .


HAHA! You think about what you write? How about the blue donut makes 10x more Alliances, SAME SITUATION.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#4142 - 2014-10-02 20:31:01 UTC
Klown Walk wrote:
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.

Who are these people that are going to form up to fight Klown Walk on his roams? Have they been sitting in hisec, just biding their time until capital jumpdrives got nerfed?

Here's what's going to happen; you jump into system where half a dozen of these new pioneers are ratting. They dock up their ratting boats, reship into a hard counter or wait until you leave.
Doral Reinert
Rabid Dogz Mining
#4143 - 2014-10-02 20:31:33 UTC
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#4144 - 2014-10-02 20:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Demonfist
Arrendis wrote:
Demonfist wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
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.

Tell that to your boss and his letter signers.


Hi, I'm in the game, and I work for 'his boss' (if you check, you'll see my articles and 'mod' tag over there). And I haven't stopped giggling with evil glee over these changes. Yes, it means internal logistics will probably be a more involved activity, and more combat assets will likely be used for escorting logistics assets while we wait for the new sov changes, but I'm willing to do that. Heck, I might even sign up for GSOL to help w/the freighter end of things, why not?

In the meantime, we are going to have an absolute ball repeatedly kicking the balls of all of the little groups of spuds who've been puffing up their chests and imagining themselves to be doing real and lasting harm to us by killing a few disposable ratting ships.

Hey, how do you give a MOA interceptor trying to sneak back to 5ZXX a bad day? 5 sentry-loaded archons arranged around a gate, remote-seboing and assisted to a single keres. With the range on their cap transfers, they can be 20km off the gate in each of the cardinal directions and still not have any trouble capping and repping one another (or the keres!)

Thanks for entirely missing the point. I wasn't saying goons should be scared. They'll likely actually start getting all the content they want now. He was saying those letter signers aren't "everyone".

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#4145 - 2014-10-02 20:33:04 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?


and you are going to chain your entire 250 man fleet too? cus a jump is a jump eh?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Dreiden Kisada
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4146 - 2014-10-02 20:33:20 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?


Because of fatigue.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#4147 - 2014-10-02 20:33:21 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?

Using a jumpbridge or titanbridge also gives you jump fatigue
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4148 - 2014-10-02 20:33:29 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?


You mean how a timer preventing you from using a jump drive or jump bridge will prevent you from using a jump bridge network/titan chain?
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#4149 - 2014-10-02 20:33:34 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
How is jump fatigue going to make thins any different when the larger alliance can just make a chain of titans to bridge them?


...... umm......

...."walks away".....

Yaay!!!!
Doral Reinert
Rabid Dogz Mining
#4150 - 2014-10-02 20:34:02 UTC
I'm just saying. I can't even fly cap ships, and this sounds like a terrible idea.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4151 - 2014-10-02 20:34:24 UTC
Rarnak Ki wrote:


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.


Ummm, well I'll explain the obvious to you then. Convoys, scale back operations (which is part of the objective).

Figure it out.
Kirasten
Perkone
Caldari State
#4152 - 2014-10-02 20:34:52 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
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.


So that if you jump your ship to many times, it may go splody!!! I love it, do it!!!
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4153 - 2014-10-02 20:35:11 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
I'm just saying. I can't even fly cap ships, and this sounds like a terrible idea.


Alt's normally can't.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4154 - 2014-10-02 20:36:58 UTC
Doral Reinert wrote:
Here is an easier fix for sov IMO. Simply limit the number of systems and alliance can hold .


Oh yea, there's no way around that. Oh yea, same thing we already have.
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#4155 - 2014-10-02 20:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Demonfist
Rarnak Ki wrote:

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.

Jumps are the least of their concerns. They will all be nuked by fleets of 200 dreadnaughts for the lulz. Better start buying up modules now, because the price of -everything- is going up. Highsec just got a lot smaller.

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4156 - 2014-10-02 20:37:11 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
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.

Repackage, unpack, carry on as before.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4157 - 2014-10-02 20:37:31 UTC
ugly inside wrote:
as the ex CCP devs that went to RIOT (league of lulz) say.. why break the meta if the players made it into what it is with the tools the devs gave us.



This... this is why there is opposition.


I'm still on pg. 162 and I have yet to see a single Dev post that didn't say "Marker".

I would really like to understand why such a radical change is on the table, rather than focusing on common sense fixes like: Cyno's having a Bandwidth for the number of ships that can jump to them (as well as a restriction on the number of cyno's that can co-exist in the same system). Doesn't that defeat the massive escalations?

An incremental change like that, followed by a Development pause, and then additional Public Discussion/ Iteration/ and planning is far less 'burn it with fire' than this proposal.

Stop punishing all our hard work, because you can't handle the emergence we create...

Nerfing isn't Fearless development - it's cowardice, and an inability to think outside the box and actually Design.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#4158 - 2014-10-02 20:38:38 UTC
Flaming Forum Spammer wrote:
F* realism... it's why we don't have newtonian physics.


Ok, but that would really slow you down. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Nothing.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#4159 - 2014-10-02 20:38:56 UTC
Off topic it looks like the same 30-40 people keep posting regulaly. The fate of capitals might rest withthese people.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4160 - 2014-10-02 20:39:10 UTC
Demonfist wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Demonfist wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
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.

Tell that to your boss and his letter signers.


Hi, I'm in the game, and I work for 'his boss' (if you check, you'll see my articles and 'mod' tag over there). And I haven't stopped giggling with evil glee over these changes. Yes, it means internal logistics will probably be a more involved activity, and more combat assets will likely be used for escorting logistics assets while we wait for the new sov changes, but I'm willing to do that. Heck, I might even sign up for GSOL to help w/the freighter end of things, why not?

In the meantime, we are going to have an absolute ball repeatedly kicking the balls of all of the little groups of spuds who've been puffing up their chests and imagining themselves to be doing real and lasting harm to us by killing a few disposable ratting ships.

Hey, how do you give a MOA interceptor trying to sneak back to 5ZXX a bad day? 5 sentry-loaded archons arranged around a gate, remote-seboing and assisted to a single keres. With the range on their cap transfers, they can be 20km off the gate in each of the cardinal directions and still not have any trouble capping and repping one another (or the keres!)

Thanks for entirely missing the point. I wasn't saying goons should be scared. They'll likely actually start getting all the content they want now. He was saying those letter signers aren't "everyone".

You said "everyone in the game". I'm pretty sure that means "everyone in the game", not just "someone's 'letter signers'", whatever that's supposed to mean.