These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#7041 - 2014-10-06 00:50:05 UTC
Gwailar wrote:
3) A primary goal for these changes is to get caps using gates instead of jumps for travel farther than ~20 LY. Hence the decision to nerf jump range and frequency and open up the gates.

And this goal is, frankly, insane. You are taking ships that have more DPS and more tank than a BS, the ability to select weapon systems that best target whatever is thrown against them, and the capability to refit modules on the fly, and putting them on the same plane as every subcap ship in the game. The only reason that some believe capitals ships have been rendered useless is because they are stuck in the mind-set that capital ships are different than subcaps. But, asside from having a GTFO button they can press on occasion, they're now the same thing, only better.

B-R already showed that subcaps were irrelevent for the massive, news-breaking battles. Now, they're going to be irrelevent for all battles outside of highsec.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7042 - 2014-10-06 01:01:46 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Gwailar wrote:
3) A primary goal for these changes is to get caps using gates instead of jumps for travel farther than ~20 LY. Hence the decision to nerf jump range and frequency and open up the gates.

And this goal is, frankly, insane. You are taking ships that have more DPS and more tank than a BS, the ability to select weapon systems that best target whatever is thrown against them, and the capability to refit modules on the fly, and putting them on the same plane as every subcap ship in the game. The only reason that some believe capitals ships have been rendered useless is because they are stuck in the mind-set that capital ships are different than subcaps. But, asside from having a GTFO button they can press on occasion, they're now the same thing, only better.

B-R already showed that subcaps were irrelevent for the massive, news-breaking battles. Now, they're going to be irrelevent for all battles outside of highsec.

This is why in believe carriers going to thwacked by the nerf bat. The ability to punch down with almost perfect effectiveness and ability to make an unbreakable wall of reps are the main criminals here.
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#7043 - 2014-10-06 01:03:26 UTC
Firstly, I have been afk for the last week and I have no intention of reading 350+ pages of replies to this game altering blog.

In principal I am strongly in favour of the objectives CCP are trying to achieve in regards to limiting power projection and opening up 0.0 to smaller entities.

I am wondering what modelling they have done for the changes they have proposed though. If I were in their shoes I would investigate:

Jump Drive Recovery a skill which reduced a trainable skill that reduced fatigue by 5% per level.

Introduce cyno mass limitations similar to the system used for wormholes.

Reduce the proposed jump range limitations.
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#7044 - 2014-10-06 01:06:07 UTC
I'm praying to hear about news on black ops changes this week. This threadnaught while spectacular, has covered the issue on every possible angle sane or not.

Every day I'm wafflin!
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7045 - 2014-10-06 01:10:24 UTC
Eigenvalue wrote:

CCP already said they stopped reading this thread at page 200 because apparently 2 days is long enough for players to think through the changes, discuss, and give feedback. Better than the CSM though!


We are still popping in and reading the thread, but I think what they meant was that we aren't going to be going page by page and responding to every post. People are not going unheard though.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#7046 - 2014-10-06 01:11:21 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Eigenvalue wrote:

CCP already said they stopped reading this thread at page 200 because apparently 2 days is long enough for players to think through the changes, discuss, and give feedback. Better than the CSM though!


We are still popping in and reading the thread, but I think what they meant was that we aren't going to be going page by page and responding to every post. People are not going unheard though.


See? Take that all you nay sayers

Also a Wild Dev Suddenly decloaks

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#7047 - 2014-10-06 01:12:36 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Eigenvalue wrote:

CCP already said they stopped reading this thread at page 200 because apparently 2 days is long enough for players to think through the changes, discuss, and give feedback. Better than the CSM though!


We are still popping in and reading the thread, but I think what they meant was that we aren't going to be going page by page and responding to every post. People are not going unheard though.


Nice avatar there buddy.
Eigenvalue
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7048 - 2014-10-06 01:14:16 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Gwailar wrote:
3) A primary goal for these changes is to get caps using gates instead of jumps for travel farther than ~20 LY. Hence the decision to nerf jump range and frequency and open up the gates.

And this goal is, frankly, insane. You are taking ships that have more DPS and more tank than a BS, the ability to select weapon systems that best target whatever is thrown against them, and the capability to refit modules on the fly, and putting them on the same plane as every subcap ship in the game. The only reason that some believe capitals ships have been rendered useless is because they are stuck in the mind-set that capital ships are different than subcaps. But, asside from having a GTFO button they can press on occasion, they're now the same thing, only better.

B-R already showed that subcaps were irrelevent for the massive, news-breaking battles. Now, they're going to be irrelevent for all battles outside of highsec.


Sorry how exactly were those supers pinned down? Hictors? And how did the hictors stay on field? Subcap support fleets?

Yes the subcaps weren't killing the supers, because the supers were killing the supers. The subcaps formed the support and were critical to the battle.

I'm confused how making flying caps boring in any way changes caps to be more like subs in the way you allude to. Gate jumping in is in all ways worse than jump drives. All the fitting stuff you're talking about is still true today, just caps are less effective in mobility.

The real reason caps aren't used instead of sub caps is subcaps are much less expensive and skill intensive... and the fact they align like pigs and can be pointed almost instantly and can't burn out of bubbles and can't target quickly and all the other reasons you see subcap fleets dunking capitals all the time.
t'raq mardon
Laminated Metals
#7049 - 2014-10-06 01:27:24 UTC
If your goal is to kill logistics for small groups, make it impossible for small groups to own space, end small gang skirmishes between anyone not NAPed, making the game harder to start playing, make the game less interesting to keep playing, drive of anyone that doesn't emo-rage about carebears, and see just how low you can get sub levels your doing a bang up job.

going to take days to bring low ends or anything else in from jita, thats just not going to even happen unless you have a dozen people all helping with a different leg of the route. so unless you have lots of bodies your not moving things back and forth from high sec after this

capital ships (effectievly) won't be able to jump anymore, so big groups will just move them via gates in massive fleets with subcap support when they need to, and small gangs will sell them off and never have a chance at owning or defending space.

small gangs can't roam because why wouldn't I warp 3 carriers and 2 dreads to a gate, not like they can cyno in anything. somebody mentioned small gangs now have a tactical necessity. exactly, no small gangs unless it's tactically necessary, aka no small gangs unless your in RvB.

so basically eve is going to become a game where you log on and grind. your either grinding anomalies, or missions, or ore, or travel time. I'm super excited to see that happen...

keep up the good work CCP.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#7050 - 2014-10-06 01:37:34 UTC
Scout Vyvorant wrote:
Sierra Grey wrote:
Scout Vyvorant wrote:
After 350 pages of tears from nullbears, I wouldn't put my money on CCP actually breaking the status quo of the nullsec power projection.

But if they do, they'll have my total undivided respect.


351 pages of why Members of CCP should not go out drinking and coming up with new ideas.


Stagnation is bad, your leader said it, now that you got a brilliant idea to shake up the water you prefer the stagnation?


There is a fine line from shaking up and screwing up. This is screwing up, though considering you are FW, I am not surprised you are gloating over this.

You all are due for a isk nerf as well.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#7051 - 2014-10-06 01:41:16 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Eigenvalue wrote:

CCP already said they stopped reading this thread at page 200 because apparently 2 days is long enough for players to think through the changes, discuss, and give feedback. Better than the CSM though!


We are still popping in and reading the thread, but I think what they meant was that we aren't going to be going page by page and responding to every post. People are not going unheard though.



Not going unheard and actually listening are two very different things and listening to your player base is something you all have a very hard time doing.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#7052 - 2014-10-06 01:45:05 UTC
t'raq mardon wrote:
If your goal is to kill logistics for small groups, make it impossible for small groups to own space, end small gang skirmishes between anyone not NAPed, making the game harder to start playing, make the game less interesting to keep playing, drive of anyone that doesn't emo-rage about carebears, and see just how low you can get sub levels your doing a bang up job.

going to take days to bring low ends or anything else in from jita, thats just not going to even happen unless you have a dozen people all helping with a different leg of the route. so unless you have lots of bodies your not moving things back and forth from high sec after this

capital ships (effectievly) won't be able to jump anymore, so big groups will just move them via gates in massive fleets with subcap support when they need to, and small gangs will sell them off and never have a chance at owning or defending space.

small gangs can't roam because why wouldn't I warp 3 carriers and 2 dreads to a gate, not like they can cyno in anything. somebody mentioned small gangs now have a tactical necessity. exactly, no small gangs unless it's tactically necessary, aka no small gangs unless your in RvB.

so basically eve is going to become a game where you log on and grind. your either grinding anomalies, or missions, or ore, or travel time. I'm super excited to see that happen...

keep up the good work CCP.

Shouldnt you be in highsec somewhere running missions and not getting involved in big boy conversations?

<~~~~~ Pacifist carebears go that way...
Devious Johnson
Doomheim
#7053 - 2014-10-06 01:58:06 UTC
I fully support the long distance travel changes. Death to the blue donuts...they are boring.

However I do see a risk that small groups will be unable to support themselves in deep null.

therefore

I think they should add mission hubs in multiple hard to reach places in null. Most of null are carebears anyway.. they like boring PVE stuff.

the mission difficulty should be similar to C4 WH sleeper sites. So it encourages teamwork rather than solo play.

because currently the argument is that these deep null places can only support a few people per system because all the anoms etc get farmed and depleted. Where as Missions constantly respawn.

This would

A) - Provide a reason for people to live in these places
B) - Provide incentive for a deep null market hubs to form
C) - Give visting WHolers and other travellers more targets to shoot at.
D) - Provide a PvP battleground as null groups fight to control the mission hub and surounding systems.
Draconas109
Dova Industry
#7054 - 2014-10-06 02:12:51 UTC
Would this change affect people using the jump bridge on poses? If so then that's just stupid
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#7055 - 2014-10-06 02:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
Devious Johnson wrote:
I fully support the long distance travel changes. Death to the blue donuts...they are boring.

However I do see a risk that small groups will be unable to support themselves in deep null.

therefore

I think they should add mission hubs in multiple hard to reach places in null. Most of null are carebears anyway.. they like boring PVE stuff.

the mission difficulty should be similar to C4 WH sleeper sites. So it encourages teamwork rather than solo play.

because currently the argument is that these deep null places can only support a few people per system because all the anoms etc get farmed and depleted. Where as Missions constantly respawn.

This would

A) - Provide a reason for people to live in these places
B) - Provide incentive for a deep null market hubs to form
C) - Give visting WHolers and other travellers more targets to shoot at.
D) - Provide a PvP battleground as null groups fight to control the mission hub and surounding systems.

I wonder what main you belong to...Roll

...
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#7056 - 2014-10-06 02:21:10 UTC
SanDooD wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Hmm Branch to Dek, in a carrier - currently a few hours once you have cynos in place. Post patch, 3 maybe 4 days (remembering you will now have to make 4X the amount of jumps).
Same will go for Branch - You need help your only option is your blue neighbors and if Branch is being invaded then your neighbors already have problems of their own and won't be able to assist you. Forget the "CFC" coming to your aide, your too far away.

Ok I agree, force projection wasn't removed but in fact reduced - Reduced to the point where the only entity you as an alliance can rely on is yourselves. The CFC will survive for the sole purpose of -- Who wants red neighbors..


PS; Branch is already made up of lots of small group of miners, ratters and manufacturers.. This will only encourage them to shrink further into their little corner of space.


I already pointed out in another post that this is not how wars are fought or fronts reinforced. Anybody fighting a war on multiple fronts is bound to get a bloody nose. If enemy decides to fight that war then aren't they also in the same predicament as the defenders? Won't enemy have to move their assets around as well?

For all intents and purposes this change will do nothing, if only slightly inconvenience the logistics. We will stockpile carriers and dreads in systems of strategic importance and we won't be jumping them from Dek to Branch, but will be taking a jump clone or interceptor if clone is on cooldown. Furthermore, since gates are now a viable alternative to jumping and being fatigued to hell, we can always use those to relocate capitals.

As I said previously, this change will have its biggest effect on small guys and they will be more screwed by it than big alliances and coalitions. It's the Average Joe pilot that will suffer the most because he won't be able to change the region when he joins another corp, as well as players who relied on JF to make money by providing logistics services.

To think that CFC or N3/PL is going to be severely crippled by this change is really funny. They thought Technetium nerf would cause CFC to crumble and die off because cash cow is being hit on the head with CCP Nerfbat. Guess what happened? Nothing.

The juggernaut will continue to plow on.


If it makes no difference, why do you cry so hard.

I love goon tears.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#7057 - 2014-10-06 02:22:44 UTC
Systemlord Rah wrote:
i like the changes so far the only thing that hurts is the jumprange for JF
as someone that believes local production should be a must in 0.0 space i add a few comments

i believe it would be fair for logistic pilots if the timer would kick in only if the jf pilot jumps in rapit succesion of 3 times or more

lets say jf pilots have a special training or eq on board with that in place they can jump many times(up to 3) withou timer
after that the timer kicks in because of the rapid jumps the fatige hits the pilot realy hard te first timer at 30min or more i would say up to 3-4h after lets say 48h the jumps the jf pilot can jump without timer is back to 3 but only if no timer is present

all jf pilots i know run logistcs in around 15-30 min and 1 to 3 times a week while supportet with scouts and cynos at least allow jf pilots to reach all possible home systems in one jumpchain without waiting and hit them after that most people hate logistic at least dont make the time spent with this activity any longer than


You won't have to worry about jump freighters.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#7058 - 2014-10-06 02:30:49 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Devious Johnson wrote:
I fully support the long distance travel changes. Death to the blue donuts...they are boring.

However I do see a risk that small groups will be unable to support themselves in deep null.

therefore

I think they should add mission hubs in multiple hard to reach places in null. Most of null are carebears anyway.. they like boring PVE stuff.

the mission difficulty should be similar to C4 WH sleeper sites. So it encourages teamwork rather than solo play.

because currently the argument is that these deep null places can only support a few people per system because all the anoms etc get farmed and depleted. Where as Missions constantly respawn.

This would

A) - Provide a reason for people to live in these places
B) - Provide incentive for a deep null market hubs to form
C) - Give visting WHolers and other travellers more targets to shoot at.
D) - Provide a PvP battleground as null groups fight to control the mission hub and surounding systems.

I wonder what main you belong to...Roll


Oh, that's goon propaganda. They still want their launch points.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#7059 - 2014-10-06 02:39:01 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Devious Johnson wrote:
I fully support the long distance travel changes. Death to the blue donuts...they are boring.

However I do see a risk that small groups will be unable to support themselves in deep null.

therefore

I think they should add mission hubs in multiple hard to reach places in null. Most of null are carebears anyway.. they like boring PVE stuff.

the mission difficulty should be similar to C4 WH sleeper sites. So it encourages teamwork rather than solo play.

because currently the argument is that these deep null places can only support a few people per system because all the anoms etc get farmed and depleted. Where as Missions constantly respawn.

This would

A) - Provide a reason for people to live in these places
B) - Provide incentive for a deep null market hubs to form
C) - Give visting WHolers and other travellers more targets to shoot at.
D) - Provide a PvP battleground as null groups fight to control the mission hub and surounding systems.

I wonder what main you belong to...Roll


Oh, that's goon propaganda. They still want their launch points.

To be honest, it's not a half bad idea...

Just scrap SOV mechanics and have all of null NPC space, it'll work then!

...
Devious Johnson
Doomheim
#7060 - 2014-10-06 02:48:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Devious Johnson
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Devious Johnson wrote:
I fully support the long distance travel changes. Death to the blue donuts...they are boring.

However I do see a risk that small groups will be unable to support themselves in deep null.

therefore

I think they should add mission hubs in multiple hard to reach places in null. Most of null are carebears anyway.. they like boring PVE stuff.

the mission difficulty should be similar to C4 WH sleeper sites. So it encourages teamwork rather than solo play.

because currently the argument is that these deep null places can only support a few people per system because all the anoms etc get farmed and depleted. Where as Missions constantly respawn.

This would

A) - Provide a reason for people to live in these places
B) - Provide incentive for a deep null market hubs to form
C) - Give visting WHolers and other travellers more targets to shoot at.
D) - Provide a PvP battleground as null groups fight to control the mission hub and surounding systems.

I wonder what main you belong to...Roll


Oh, that's goon propaganda. They still want their launch points.

To be honest, it's not a half bad idea...

Just scrap SOV mechanics and have all of null NPC space, it'll work then!


I would just have no npc stations so null groups cant store undestroyable ship caches and jump clones in these stations.. Ships etc would still need to be stored in destroyable outposts or POSs etc.

Missions are given out by a agent in space. defended by a unkillable/tankable NPC pirates / anchored guns or whatever..

mission hubs should be far enough apart to make using one hub to support another difficult.