These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#4901 - 2014-10-03 03:54:26 UTC
smokeydapot wrote:


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.

That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4902 - 2014-10-03 03:54:58 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
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!


If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case.

CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game.

All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable.

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.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4903 - 2014-10-03 03:55:05 UTC
Joey Zasa wrote:



"fallacious non sequitur"- is that the toon that offers hot chat for 20 mill a minute in Hek?


I caught a space herpe off of her!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4904 - 2014-10-03 03:55:08 UTC
The more I think of these chance the more I think CCP grew tired of people using their cap all the time for pretty much any kind of operation they decided to upgrade their nerfbat to a wrecking ball.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4905 - 2014-10-03 03:58:25 UTC
Summer Isle wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
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.

If the difference between a video game and a public service is so small in your mind, you have really, really got to get outside. I'm not even joking with this, you need to cancel your sub(s), go outside, and actually live for a while.

EVE is a game. A public service is generally a necessity for safe and healthy living.

Cities and States and Countries provide services to people to allow those people to actually live.

And EVE? EVE is a game.


It wasn't intended to be a hard *eve is real* comparison...

And your concern is appreciated - but unnecessary. I get out plenty enough, and my wife and 4 children keep me plenty busy :)

Which is also why, like others, I loath the idea of adding even more *waiting* to this game. I have friends that refuse to re-sub simply because they do not have the time to invest in the game as it is... this isn't going to make that issue any better for those of us that have any skills or desire to fly caps (and <3 Logibro's - God help you dudes)

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4906 - 2014-10-03 03:59:58 UTC
Petrified wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:


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.

That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions.

Caldari is the only one that can achieve most of a multi-stage reaction, but it has to strip down all e-war and resists to achieve this. Everything can be done without caldari towers - I run the most demanding reactions in EVE in a Gallente.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4907 - 2014-10-03 04:02:25 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
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!


If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case.

CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game.

All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable.



If you like Corporatocracy then that's fine.... CCP should go public, let us buy shares, and then we can vote on the direction of the company?

Is that better? Would that type of *vote* be acceptable?

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
smokeydapot
Moon Of The Pheonix
#4908 - 2014-10-03 04:03:55 UTC
Petrified wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:


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.

That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions.


I will check this in more detail and redact my comment for now ( only because i'm going to bed ).

Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Petrified wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:


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.

That is factually false. I use a Gallente tower just fine to run reactions. Is it ideal? No. Is a Cadari tower the only one you do reactions in? Absolutely not. But I will admit it is the best one to use for reactions.

Caldari is the only one that can achieve most of a multi-stage reaction, but it has to strip down all e-war and resists to achieve this. Everything can be done without caldari towers - I run the most demanding reactions in EVE in a Gallente.


same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4909 - 2014-10-03 04:07:30 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
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.

Except that it isnt. Stewardship has nothing to do with doing 'what the players want.'

In real life we accept less stewardship in government in favor of more response to popular demand. This is to limt governmental power - government frequently exercises poor stewardshop trying to make too many competing intersts happy, often none of which have the best interests of society at heart.

CCP has no responsibility of stewardship other than that they assign themselves. It is not dependent on accomodating what is popular. Their ideas may be good or bad but that is not a matter of threadnaught opinion.

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.
DragonZer0
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#4910 - 2014-10-03 04:08:12 UTC
You know I've been looking at this more and more. CCP is Fing over the jump mechanic completely in this game that you might as well take gates w/e you want to go.

Looking further into this I came across some Low-slot mods called Hyperspatial Accelerator.

A stock carrier/dread it does about 1.5au/sec and aligns in the 20-30sec range. Extremely slow in other words.

Adding Three of the Prototype Hyperspatial Accelerator gives a new speed of 2.4au/sec combined that with some T2 inertia modifier and a 100mn mwd you get a 10sec align time.

If my memory serves me right you said capital can take the gate now with this possible new patch.

So with this your making capitals capable of moving in the range of an armored battle-cruiser speed. Doing this may slow the Apex force down in terms of jumping across the galaxy in under 20 minutes but at the same time making it so a group of 10 people flying carriers can move about there marry way any worry of a counter attack.

CCP as it stand all you have done is made the capitals ships of today the battleships of yesterday.
What will you think up nextQuestion
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#4911 - 2014-10-03 04:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
smokeydapot wrote:

same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done.

Oh, my Gallente towers are far from bare. But they get the reactions done. It would be shortsighted to put a tower up outside of High Sec without ensuring it had defenses. eve-mail me and I am willing to talk about it.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4912 - 2014-10-03 04:11:36 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
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!


If CCP does things by popular vote, especially that of the vested interest of nullsec pilots afraid of dealing with change, the game will also stagnate and die. Popular vote is not a guarantor of emergent content (and keeping things as they are certainly wont). This thread is not a 'vote' in any case.

CCP is a business. It is in their best interest to keep player numbers up regardless. No matter what they do, someone will not like it, quit, and claim it will kl the game.

All you are doing is dressing up 'do what I want!' in the language of some sort of vague idea of social justice and stewardship, which will never be applicable.



If you like Corporatocracy then that's fine.... CCP should go public, let us buy shares, and then we can vote on the direction of the company?

Is that better? Would that type of *vote* be acceptable?


It would, but I am really not worried about a 'corporatocracy' consisting of one small video game company. If CCP thinks issuing public stock would be good for their bottom line, then they shod do so. They should not do so out of some sense of internet spaceship social justice.

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.
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#4913 - 2014-10-03 04:14:31 UTC
I've posted this in other threads and people have liked the idea in other threads.

I would propose the following to keep BLOPS doable but limit mass T3 fleets from being bridged across null sec.

Keep it simple
********************************************************************************************
- Make any jump/bridge to a covert beacon not accrue fatigue outside of T3s

- T3s can still be bridged but normal fatigue applies

- A Black Ops BS CAN bridge/jump to a normal Cyno but normal fatigue rules apply


This allows Black Ops to be done without it being used for mass bridging T3 fleets any more than you could with a Titan chain. A lot of players across New Eden love the doctrine and these changes really hurt it.

Every day I'm wafflin!
smokeydapot
Moon Of The Pheonix
#4914 - 2014-10-03 04:16:42 UTC
Petrified wrote:
smokeydapot wrote:

same again redacted until further research but towers should not be bare while doing reactions nor striped down to a tower a few silos and a reactor to get the job done.

Oh, my Gallente towers are far from bare. But they get the reactions done. It would be shortsighted to put a tower up outside of High Sec without ensuring it had defenses. eve-mail me and I am willing to talk about it.



Like I said redacted my comment for now my strontium is depleted need to go get more so I can carry on sieging this threadnaught.

Will check my comment when I return refreshed.
ugly inside
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4915 - 2014-10-03 04:17:40 UTC
Toriessian wrote:
I've posted this in other threads and people have liked the idea in other threads.

I would propose the following to keep BLOPS doable but limit mass T3 fleets from being bridged across null sec.

Keep it simple
********************************************************************************************
- Make any jump/bridge to a covert beacon not accrue fatigue outside of T3s

- T3s can still be bridged but normal fatigue applies

- A Black Ops BS CAN bridge/jump to a normal Cyno but normal fatigue rules apply


This allows Black Ops to be done without it being used for mass bridging T3 fleets any more than you could with a Titan chain. A lot of players across New Eden love the doctrine and these changes really hurt it.


0 links to other threads where your 3 or 4 followers liked the idea on the different topics making you feel big..
sooooo
0 $#!T$ given
Ronin Silfar
Our Big Spaceship Gang
#4916 - 2014-10-03 04:23:46 UTC
TimeDrawsNigh wrote:
Counter proposal for the jump delay timer.

Link below is a google excel doc. of cumulative delay timer that incrementally gets longer with each jump.

http://bit.ly/1rOpzTs

It’s a logarithmic scale.

...snip...


Sounds reasonable enough. I'd be interested to see CCPs thoughts on it.
Varos Kang
Conquering Darkness
#4917 - 2014-10-03 04:26:17 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
It seems that everyone has missed the point. It's not WHAT the megacorps do with these big shiny caps, it's WHY. And the answer is simple.... MONEY. It is more efficient for nullsec industrial entities, who usually handle daily belt raiders and ordinary roams on their own, to PAY for the heavy combat lifting. That is what rental space is all about. Before, the money was in the moons, so they became focal points, but now the money is in the SPACE itself.

If someone is gonna hurt you, and you get the rules changed to take away his gun, then it won't be long till he comes back with a knife. The only thing these changes will effect is the tools and methods of the overlords. Nothing being done here will change the actual status of nullsec at ALL. It just wastes a lot of valuable player time and limits the choices of every player in the game.

If you want to stop all this hot dropping, make renter empire UNPROFITABLE. Hit the mega corps where it hurts......

IN THE WALLET!!!

With just a few simple changes to CONCORD FEES, you can render uninhabited, low activity systems prohibitively expensive. Further, Increase the cost of ALL systems for sov owners above a certain number.

Examples:

a system with less than 5 active players (docked or in space..avg for 24hrs) and no industry/military/strategic index of at least one should cost ONE THOUSAND TIMES the base for every CONCORD sov bill to be paid.

ACTIVE systems, on the other hand...... with lets say.. over 30 pilots and with ANY index at 4 or higher, would pay the base costs for all facilities.

As for SIZE begin imposing sov cost increases for owners of... let's say.... 20 systems or more. Make them pay an extra 25% for ALL sov costs. 50 systems or more? PAY 50% MORE. Hey why not even give the REALLY small holder, like with only one or 2 systems a 50% cost break?

Now CCP, I can't mine the data like you can, so this is just an IDEA, but with a bit of adjusting, I'm willing to bet it will fix the blight issue. Smaller entities can them move in without the burden of rent, develop their own space and can spend the money they save on rent for SELF DEFENSE. Maybe, just MAYBE... no more nullbears.... Wow, what a concept....

Believe me , the megacorps will drop their vast tracts of nullsec blight like hot coals. with no rents there will be no mercenary reaction obligations. Pilots who have been forced to sit and wait all day for a fight wont get trigger happy and hot jump small roams simply out of desperate boredom. Those of you who whine about getting anvil dropped should remember that the guys on the other end must waste ENDLESS hours of their playtime simply waiting on your asses to come along......

All I'm seeing here is STICK. And I might ad a very clumsily wielded one. Maybe you have the wrong minds working on this problem..... I have always found that the CARROT not only works better, it leaves everyone with a more positive, constructive attitude as the process advances.


IN short, treating the SYMPTOMS doesn't get rid of the DISEASE..... you have to find a CURE.


This idea has some merit. Scratch that, it has a LOT of merit. If the cost of keeping these empty systems goes above what a null empire can get for renting it, they will drop it like a hot potato. Many small entities existing on the same landscape means lots of differing opinions, opportunities for diplomacy (particularly blaster diplomacy), and even the possibility of trade between relatively friendly neighbours. A richer Eve for everyone involved.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4918 - 2014-10-03 04:29:04 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4919 - 2014-10-03 04:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:


CCP has no responsibility of stewardship other than that they assign themselves.



Except...

Quote:
Pétursson: I can't speculate that far. We just want EVE to continue to grow and prosper in its second decade. Ultimately I hope we have the stewardship to make it outlive us all.


Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/eve-interview-ccp-ceo-hilmar-veigar-petursson-on-the-future-of-the-eve-universe/


CCP stewardship isn't my invention - so the onus is on CCP, they took up that mantle all on their own.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Seer Aaron
Deep Sea Dweller
#4920 - 2014-10-03 04:30:25 UTC
These changes are almost completely stifle logistics in NPC space, I tried to CCP themselves to sit on DF and go from NPC space in the nearest Lowsec, through the territory of a hostile alliances. If this decision has put the hands of the people of the CSM, I think this part of the CSM need to cancel and get a new one, because they by their actions spoil the game. Predict the mass loss of the number of people on the servers. At least in our Alliance about this many seriously thinking and looking in the direction of Star Citizen. I do not want to lose people, and especially to leave your favorite game.