These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#4881 - 2014-10-03 03:35:09 UTC
does this mean that people got their 'escort carriers' now?
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#4882 - 2014-10-03 03:36:06 UTC
Wow, haven't seen a threadnaught like this in a long time. Nice to see they still do exist once in a while.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4883 - 2014-10-03 03:36:28 UTC
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Then let me point out something obvious of which you are unaware: my feedback about this change was solicited by the owners of this forum. They asked for this. If you have a problem with that, take it up with CCP.

Allow us to point out that our opinions of your opinions - misguided, entitled, and revealing an appalling case of nullbear laziness - was also solicited. They asked for it, as did you when you posted in this forum.

We have no issue with continuing to point out that your opinions do nothing to advance the state of the game at large.

Cheers!

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miyammato Musashi
Freeport Exploration
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
#4884 - 2014-10-03 03:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Miyammato Musashi
I Love Boobies wrote:
Wow, haven't seen a threadnaught like this in a long time. Nice to see they still do exist once in a while.

Hey! This is big revolutionary stuff for EvE! It's a big deal!!! Big smile

edit: btw - that's a fabulous handel you have thar...

I am a meat popsicle. 
beaconBoy SavesTheDay
Galactic Hauling Solutions Inc.
#4885 - 2014-10-03 03:38:24 UTC
JF get a speed limit of 1 LY per minute

I realize most comments in this thread discuss null sec, capital ships and power projection. All of these game mechanics are going to be affected profoundly. But for a moment, let's dive deep into the topic of logistics and jump freighters.

My courier corp saves you time, and let's you play Eve without spending precious hours on logistics. On the average, I move over a dozen contracts to the far reaches of low sec every day. Most of these contracts involve 2 cyno hops to make the delivery, and often another 2 cyno hops as part of the return trip. But all of this may stop....pause for drama...

Only a couple comments in this thread go into the details of how a hauler will be affected. Today, to complete a contract, I'll spend 20 to 30 minutes, and I'll do this for 4 to 6 hours a day. But with the suggested changes, the time to complete a contract increase to a minimum of 45 minutes per contract. Probably more like an hour since suicide med clones are going away.

If I move cargo any faster, I'll quickly see fatigue build up and my cool down time increase to an hour or two per cyno hop for the next contract?!

After running several scenarios involving 5 or 10 deliveries per day over a distance of 20 LY (plus the return trip) on spreadsheets, I've come to the conclusion that if the Eve Community wants their cargo moved, one simple changes has to be made. Instead of JF's effective distance being reduced to 10%, it needs to be reduced to 5% of the actual distance.

Tell your CSM rep...."JF NEED A 95% REDUCTION IN EFFECTIVE RANGE"!!!

Otherwise, all JF pilots effectively have a 1LY per minute speed limit, and will charge accordingly. In my case, I bring in 150M and 200M per hour of hauling. So instead of a flat rate pricing, shipping rates will be closer to 10M per LY for any trip beyond a simple one cyno hop trip. Contract times will also have to accommodate just how much all the JF pilots together can collectively do given their combined "jump fatigue" if there's a surge in customer contracts at any point in time. So every contract may have to be 14 day expire and 14 day complete just to play it safe.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4886 - 2014-10-03 03:38:40 UTC
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:


Then let me point out something obvious of which you are unaware: my feedback about this change was solicited by the owners of this forum. They asked for this. If you have a problem with that, take it up with CCP.

Yes, this is a forum. That means your feedback is subject to evaluation and criticism by others - speaking of obvious things you are unaware of. Your feedback was ridiculous and self-centered; it therefore got criticized. If you have a problem with that take it up with the biomass button. That's your only recourse.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#4887 - 2014-10-03 03:38:52 UTC
TBH, CCP should really fix POSes before going out into new territory...
after all, it has only been needed for what?, 10 years or so now?

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4888 - 2014-10-03 03:39:55 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Then let me point out something obvious of which you are unaware: my feedback about this change was solicited by the owners of this forum. They asked for this. If you have a problem with that, take it up with CCP.

Allow us to point out that our opinions of your opinions - misguided, entitled, and revealing an appalling case of nullbear laziness - was also solicited. They asked for it, as did you when you posted in this forum.

We have no issue with continuing to point out that your opinions do nothing to advance the state of the game at large.

Cheers!


You're free to disagree with my opinion that combat capitals need a range nerf and a jump fatigue timer all you like.
Ukiah Oregan
Lithomancers
#4889 - 2014-10-03 03:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ukiah Oregan
Summer Isle wrote:
[quote=Kassasis Dakkstromri]

And EVE? EVE is a game.


sometimes transcendence occurs without notice

http://eve.com/monument/about-the-monument/

however, CCP seems to think, along with many others, that EVE Online has become more than just a "game"
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#4890 - 2014-10-03 03:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:

All they need to do is ask themselves: Why don't we just have Interbus ship everything people want everywhere in the galaxy instantly with no cost?

They should be able to glean the error of their ways from that answer.



Because no one wants interbus to ship everything everywhere for no cost. That would be even dumber.


Why?
Explain why that would be dumber.

Isn't is just a pointless waste of time moving these things around?
Why do we need to make eve take more time? It's it all just pointless complication?



How's that strawman manufacturing job going?

It's dumber because it nothing should be free and immediate. There's no risk of loss that way.

The changes that are going through go too far the other direction on non-strategic assets. A part of the overall issue is dog pilling caps from every corner of the galaxy. Screwing jump freighters does nothing to deal with that issue.


It's not a straw man. Its one end of a spectrum where on the convenience and safety of moving goods through space exist via current and any proposed mechanics.

Of course nerfing them doesnt do anything to stop hotdrops. No one has even suggested that. Their changes nerf an entirely different activity.

Pushing the slider a bit further down the spectrum away from my alleged 'strawman'

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4891 - 2014-10-03 03:41:27 UTC
Patty Loveless wrote:
Wait-- I'm shocked... The CSM members representing that massive (super) capital-fueled blue donut in null security space don't want arguably their best defense against loosing their outter reaches of space to be nerfed?

I think CCP has commented on this before. They don't design by committee/popular vote, they do what is, in their decision, the best for the game as a whole. Vote with your feet if you feel so obliged.


And what will your position on the matter be if indeed there is a mass exodus and your subscription(s) and the remaining subscriptions are insufficient to support the continuation of EVE Online?

Again, if CCP developes EVE Online (in it's 11th Year) deaf, and blind to "committee/popular vote" then it's a fools errand. We play a sandbox for which the players emergent content is *the* sales pitch for any potential new player as well as current players. Failing to develop for the very content creators that help keep the game thriving, for a 'vision' of re-engineering a LIVE game is only traveling the same path of error that is memorialized by the likes of Star Wars Galaxies and their ilk.

Stewardship not Dictatorship!

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#4892 - 2014-10-03 03:43:28 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:


And what will your position on the matter be if indeed there is a mass exodus and your subscription(s) and the remaining subscriptions are insufficient to support the continuation of EVE Online?


We could go to the forums and have a good crynaught thread.

But I doubt it would compare to this one.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
smokeydapot
Moon Of The Pheonix
#4893 - 2014-10-03 03:46:51 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:
It's more pointing out another flaw in this half assed idea of "living" in a set area and off the resources of that area.

If I'm guna live in a set area I don't want to depend on JF's I'm happy to live off the local resources my problem is that POS's need more attention than jump mechanics as that is where your local reactions are going to happen.

We are either independent of JF's and rely on our local resources or we are not but short sighted "fixes" are the problem.


Since CCP's design goal, consistently across essentially every iteration, has been to ensure that no one area of space has access to everything...

... you're fooling yourself that it will ever be the case that you can do everything you want from one place.

Want easier POS logistics and Caldari ice? Move to space with Caldari ice.

Does that mean you have to give something up do to that?

Congratulations - welcome to balancing benefits and drawbacks.


I don't want caldari ice nor do I have a POS that does reactions ( it involves getting my hands on caldari stuff and that makes me feel dirty just saying the name).

It's not easier POS logistics its necessary POS logistics or did you skim over the part where caldari POS's ARE THE ONLY ONES that you can do reactions on because of the CPU.

I guess I'm fooling myself thinking that reactions should be possible at ALL large control towers in favour of balance instead of the one single racial type.
Joey Zasa
Swamp Panthers
SONS of BANE
#4894 - 2014-10-03 03:47:04 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Joey Zasa wrote:


REAL MEN BIOMASS!!!!!


Dude that's hardcore... props!

Though for myself - Unsubbing as a form of protest is looking better and better. If not for the actual feature, then for throwing CSM under the bus, and lying to us.





We live in curse....the jump range into low-sec is 5+ so (Doril to Podion) is out.....but I have faith we will figure it out.


being a Curse Hillbilly has its advantages.......Test please come back to G-O, we miss you.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4895 - 2014-10-03 03:48:21 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:


Then let me point out something obvious of which you are unaware: my feedback about this change was solicited by the owners of this forum. They asked for this. If you have a problem with that, take it up with CCP.

Yes, this is a forum. That means your feedback is subject to evaluation and criticism by others - speaking of obvious things you are unaware of. Your feedback was ridiculous and self-centered; it therefore got criticized. If you have a problem with that take it up with the biomass button. That's your only recourse.


Your statements grow more vapid at an exponential rate, as though you are simulating the fatigue timer. Of course my opinions are open to evaluation and criticism by others. Everyone knows that.

You tried to discredit my opinion because it was subjective, which is a fallacious non sequitur, as the validity of an opinion does not depend on its objectivity but rather on its honesty.

But I've been using the internet decades, and I will not succumb to your attempt to derail this thread or bore me to death with your flailing attempts at..... whatever you're trying to achieve here.
Nitro
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#4896 - 2014-10-03 03:50:28 UTC
Where to start? First and foremost at least your trying or thinking to improve the game mechanics. But by limiting the ships

jump capacity to 5 LY the poor new guy who barely got a capital ship and recently joined a corp of 40 might not be able to help him

move it to the new home system. He may have a few cyno alts he can borrow but additional jumps will take him longer than 2 hrs to

move to a system 50lyaway. The only people i see who would benefit from these "improvements" are BIG corporations BIG

alliances and deep pocket players who can muster a 100 carrier fleet using stargates to move when fatigue is so high. This is the

kind of improvements that kills gameplay for the small players. Also who would spend 2 hrs just to move to a home system. A lot of

players in eve already have limited playing time. There will not be a lot of battles fought, few ships destroyed, less isk spent.

Eve Trade will suffer and Economy will crash. FIx the time people spend in game to get a fight

Not lengthen it.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4897 - 2014-10-03 03:50:52 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:

In context, I was claiming I was entitled not to be bored to death by a game. You and CCP are free to make your own life choices if you disagree with that simple statement. The fact of the matter is I am a subscribing game customer and am entitled to not be bored to death by their product.

Everything in the game is affecting everything else. Your easy logistics are part of the cause of null stagnation, causing boredom and frusteration for thousands.

You are not entitled to any gameplay otber than whats is provided. We are all paying customers. You are entitled only to the access you paid for. Your level of enjoyment is your problem. You are welcome to play any other game of your choice.



While not addressing Null Sec point(s), I want to point out that perhaps between 2003 - 2006 it would be appropriate to say that as customers we are only paying for access to 'their' game... but 11 sandbox years later, the creation of epic emergent content that has made CCP millions of real dollars, and many many statements about stewardship of EVE Online directly from CCP; makes your statement hollow.

At what point does it stop being 'their' game, and start becoming 'our' game?

The CSM, irrespective of it's makeup, 'should' be viewed by CCP as a body designed for an 'Advise and Consent' role - but is more an unwanted burden they have to bear because of past mistakes.

So then they post a devblog like this, to say "Hey! See we're listening to you!", when in reality the development path is decided and our input only serves to gauge positive/negative reaction for some shinny graph created by an overworked ISD volunteer, while at the same time co-opting the community to poke holes in their theory crafting for them.

If you are content with the perspective that this is 'their' game and you only pay for access, and they can do as they wish then you are entitled to that point of view for yourself.

But the remainder of us might feel like we have put enough time, money, and effort into the emergent content of this game so as to be heavily invested in any proposed changes that seriously alter the meta-level workings that help make EVE Online what it is today; our proverbial blood, sweat, and tears.

So, just like a tax payer is 'entitled' to functioning civil services, that address their actual needs; many feel that CCP/EVE Online have reached a point of maturity as an MMORPG that makes it incumbent on them to act as proper stewards of *our* game. And iterating through a CSM 'Advisory and Consent' mechanism that they themselves established - rather than OP-Dev-Crush-It-With-A-Viking-Hammer development style.

Just a thought.



Individual taxpayers are not entitled to services based on their personal wants and demands, but to what everyone is getting. Real taxpayers frequently engage in the same histrionics as mmo players of pretending that everyone agrees with them except the stupid government, with no evidence, as well. Part of CCPs stewardship, much like that of a real govrrnment is protecting the players from the tragedy of the commons. Much like real life taxpayers, players advocate for what they think is good for them, and,lacking real responsibility, simply pretend thats whats good for everyone.


"...wants and demands,..." were your words

I clearly stated *needs*, and 'their' is in the all encompassing generalized usage. Part of proper stewardship, as with proper and effective governance, is that the 'authority' act in the best interests of the citizen (in this case player). Starting with 'town hall' interactions at a local level (ie CSM), and from there offering Public Hearing(s) (ie Development threads that are real focus groups, as opposed to this farce), and then weighing the best options coming to a decision.

CCP's current methodology is at odds with the stewardship concept they have stated in past. That's all I'm attempting to highlight.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Joey Zasa
Swamp Panthers
SONS of BANE
#4898 - 2014-10-03 03:52:25 UTC
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:


Then let me point out something obvious of which you are unaware: my feedback about this change was solicited by the owners of this forum. They asked for this. If you have a problem with that, take it up with CCP.

Yes, this is a forum. That means your feedback is subject to evaluation and criticism by others - speaking of obvious things you are unaware of. Your feedback was ridiculous and self-centered; it therefore got criticized. If you have a problem with that take it up with the biomass button. That's your only recourse.


Your statements grow more vapid at an exponential rate, as though you are simulating the fatigue timer. Of course my opinions are open to evaluation and criticism by others. Everyone knows that.

You tried to discredit my opinion because it was subjective, which is a fallacious non sequitur, as the validity of an opinion does not depend on its objectivity but rather on its honesty.

But I've been using the internet decades, and I will not succumb to your attempt to derail this thread or bore me to death with your flailing attempts at..... whatever you're trying to achieve here.



"fallacious non sequitur"- is that the toon that offers hot chat for 20 mill a minute in Hek?
Heat-seeking Moisture Missile
Deep Thought Labs
#4899 - 2014-10-03 03:52:44 UTC
Damn this 5ly distance stings

currently with jump cal 3, this is a direct jump

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,044/Efa:Saminer

13 parts to this jump plan

Total travel distance: 45.791 lightyears
Total fuel consumption: 41,206 Oxygen Isotopes (4,121 m³)
Max Jump Range: 5 lightyears (Ship: Moros and JumpDriveCalibration: Level 0)
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#4900 - 2014-10-03 03:54:18 UTC
Errors within the proposed plan.
1) Complexity of more timers and exponential sillyness.
2) Jump range changes completely breaking the accessibility of entire regions of space both sov and non-sov.
3) Capitals jumping through gates; this mechanically doesn't work if we're expected to jump large ships through gates as currently you can't warp a freighter to a gate without the risk of bouncing off of it. Much less a titan or multiple titans and the fleets to support them.
4) its not fixing any of the current problems with carriers which are the main reason this change is being implemented; the BOOT ARCHON and SLOWCAT doctrines are the primary reason for this change. Carriers should have been split into a combat platform and a logistics platform a long time ago which would have prevented this entire mass of insanity.

My opinion of CCP has gone through the gutter with this one, this proposal is one of the worst I've ever seen. It seems poorly thought out and seems to give light to why so many Devs have left for other companies in recent times.