These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7561 - 2014-10-07 22:52:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#7562 - 2014-10-07 22:54:04 UTC
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Agreed. If you give JF 100% immunity to effects of fatigue and range nerf and ban it from carrying ships in any form, then it can't be used for power projection or combat taxis.

carry ships in mineral and component form, carry the blueprints in a separate autism chariot, build in your staging system

bam I just projected the hell out of force
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7563 - 2014-10-07 22:57:25 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Agreed. If you give JF 100% immunity to effects of fatigue and range nerf and ban it from carrying ships in any form, then it can't be used for power projection or combat taxis.

carry ships in mineral and component form, carry the blueprints in a separate autism chariot, build in your staging system

bam I just projected the hell out of force

You nullsec indstried

That's CCP's victory right there

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7564 - 2014-10-07 23:01:39 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Edit: You assume Andski has 15 friends. Hah!

Maybe not 15 friends, but he at least can all-all broadcast for a bunch of fleets.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Bkdvr
Nuke Waste
Domain Research and Mining Inst. Logistics
#7565 - 2014-10-07 23:53:31 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:



*Actual number of current sov holders that rage quit over this is vastly exaggerated by bluster and unsubcribe threats; most of these people are not actually going anywhere.



You might be wrong. I just un-subbed 2 accounts (Paying accounts). While I applaud CCP for trying to make the game better, I disagree with the sledgehammer approach. The deciding factor for me is the 5ly limit on jumps to JF's.
Busta Rock
The DawnSoarers
#7566 - 2014-10-08 00:06:25 UTC
I'm decidedly angered by the sledgehammer approach as well, when CCP has had other options FOR YEARS to shake up null and the big alliances.
SanDooD
Perkone
Caldari State
#7567 - 2014-10-08 00:08:53 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?


Corporation(s) renting space from you or us (Period Basis comes to mind in our case). They are screwed. What's gonna happen is we'll probably see demand for renter space closer to low sec. Those poor guys in "deep" null are SOL. They will become even more dependent on their landlords now.

At least that's what I think, I may be completely off target though.
Athryn Bellee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7568 - 2014-10-08 00:26:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?


What will the poor renters do when they can't get instantly back to high sec to sell their loot?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7569 - 2014-10-08 00:29:32 UTC
SanDooD wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?


Corporation(s) renting space from you or us (Period Basis comes to mind in our case). They are screwed. What's gonna happen is we'll probably see demand for renter space closer to low sec. Those poor guys in "deep" null are SOL. They will become even more dependent on their landlords now.

At least that's what I think, I may be completely off target though.

Renters are part of a coalition currently.
Krefken Howiere
Mass Production
#7570 - 2014-10-08 00:37:17 UTC
Bkdvr wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:



*Actual number of current sov holders that rage quit over this is vastly exaggerated by bluster and unsubcribe threats; most of these people are not actually going anywhere.



You might be wrong. I just un-subbed 2 accounts (Paying accounts). While I applaud CCP for trying to make the game better, I disagree with the sledgehammer approach. The deciding factor for me is the 5ly limit on jumps to JF's.


Great to hear that people like you are leaving. You're part of the problem.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7571 - 2014-10-08 00:38:30 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Agreed. If you give JF 100% immunity to effects of fatigue and range nerf and ban it from carrying ships in any form, then it can't be used for power projection or combat taxis.

carry ships in mineral and component form, carry the blueprints in a separate autism chariot, build in your staging system

bam I just projected the hell out of force

You nullsec indstried

That's CCP's victory right there

The time and effort required to build it is worse than actual power projection with jump drives.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#7572 - 2014-10-08 00:41:51 UTC
Jacque Custeau wrote:
This is a another huge nerf to super-carriers and titans. For better or worse, these ships have only a fraction of the ability they once had when they were released.

Is it possible for CCP to re-visit the issue of supers and titans being able to dock? Do you really think that with all the previous changes in addition to what is being planned, it still makes sense to keep these ships out of stations?



if you allow them to dock, then you just removed the reason to change cynos last time...

it won't happen as far as I can tell, but, it would be a step forward in some cases.

o/
Celly Smunt

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.
Etrei Kordisin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7573 - 2014-10-08 00:47:00 UTC
Good to see that the hating has calmed down!

This is indeed a nerf to power projection, but if you really think this is a nerf to supers/titans overall... You really haven't thought about it Blink
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#7574 - 2014-10-08 00:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
SanDooD wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?


Corporation(s) renting space from you or us (Period Basis comes to mind in our case). They are screwed. What's gonna happen is we'll probably see demand for renter space closer to low sec. Those poor guys in "deep" null are SOL. They will become even more dependent on their landlords now.

At least that's what I think, I may be completely off target though.


Its not just entities like that - enterprising individuals/small corps that are highly mobile and taking opportunities where they can, etc. will be hit pretty hard.

The guy who had one of my thanatos before me used to do something like (not sure on exact details):

Alts in stealth bombers - scout out quiet lowsecs/null, etc. for mining - had a lot of timezones and so on mapped out.
Jump thanny full of mining ships and black ops bridge alts to target system
Do a bit of mining
If someone came into local or he was done, swap the mining ships back to bombers and jump thanny out.

He'd be pretty screwed with these changes if he was still playing.
Athryn Bellee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7575 - 2014-10-08 00:58:41 UTC
Rroff wrote:
SanDooD wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.

Anyone?


Corporation(s) renting space from you or us (Period Basis comes to mind in our case). They are screwed. What's gonna happen is we'll probably see demand for renter space closer to low sec. Those poor guys in "deep" null are SOL. They will become even more dependent on their landlords now.

At least that's what I think, I may be completely off target though.


Its not just entities like that - enterprising individuals/small corps that are highly mobile and taking opportunities where they can, etc. will be hit pretty hard.

The guy who had one of my thanatos before me used to do something like (not sure on exact details):

Alts in stealth bombers - scout out quiet lowsecs/null, etc. for mining - had a lot of timezones and so on mapped out.
Jump thanny full of mining ships and black ops bridge alts to target system
Do a bit of mining
If someone came into local or he was done, swap the mining ships back to bombers and jump thanny out.

He'd be pretty screwed with these changes if he was still playing.


Good because that is a horrible way to play an MMO.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#7576 - 2014-10-08 01:01:54 UTC
Athryn Bellee wrote:


Good because that is a horrible way to play an MMO.


Maybe so but not everyone is amused by the same thing or plays the same way. He seemed to find it satisfying though too much like hard work for my tastes.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7577 - 2014-10-08 01:32:03 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:



So where are the other CSM on this? Are they boycotting the thread, or are you liaising for the entire CSM for this thread? Just curious?


I am the forum guy, voluntarily. Others may come and go but I am the old patient one who keeps at it. Though I will admit this thread challenges anybody, myself included. As for who I speak for? Me. But if I say I will take an idea up with the devs, I do. In that regard I speak for you guys more often than not. I am not 'The Voice of the CSM'. I am just someone willing to engage in the conversation.

Not that you have reached a consensus but I take main themes and pass concerns along. Then I see what the devs say (when they let us look under the hood) and try to advise on how you will react and again push for the common ground. This is why you see me asking for specifics, cases. I am fairly decent at seeing kludges that are just workarounds and will end with no change in the status quo.

So to the issue

questions for you

Do you accept the premise that null is basically stagnant/broken?
Do you believe that power projection is partially at fault?

Understand that this is not the panacea for all the problems but one step on the path

Is it the right step?
What would you think is the next one?
IF they are going to go through with this math and this solution what minor changes would you suggest? (alternative math for fatigue and shock is all nice but mainly appears self serving so you can do what you want and screw everybody else OR you want to create a loophole that will be easier to fly through)

Feedback from this thread HAS been listened to and changes made, here and there.

I am still listening.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Busta Rock
The DawnSoarers
#7578 - 2014-10-08 01:43:34 UTC
I for one agree that null is broken. power projection however is IMHO a symptom and not the cause of the problem - a large part of the problem is that CCP has been lazy - particularly about the moon material situation and sov mechanics in general.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7579 - 2014-10-08 01:51:12 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

I am still listening.

m


If the goal (or part of the goal) is to make nullsec as a whole less dependent on logistics, you should look into making nullsec viable for T1 industry, with particular regards to nullsec sources of mexallon. Not being able to import, mine, or otherwise acquire a sufficient amount of certain basic t1 mats for an alliance of any size living in most any 0.0 region is a bit of a "f*ck you" to the player base.

Outside of that particular caveat, I think these changes are fine.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7580 - 2014-10-08 01:51:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Now I am confused in This post it seems you are following the thread to see if you can help find balance via the CSM.
Yet in the above quote you seem to be saying these changes are it, we all have to deal with it and adapt.

Which is it?
Is my play style (and that of hundreds of others) being completely removed or is there hope for the smaller groups in nul to survive without giving up PVP.
Because in its current form, these changes remove the ability of smaller groups to operate in nulsec without committing a lot more time to the mundane but necessary parts of the game.

Is it intended by CCP and the CSM that only mega corps and huge coalitions can operate in nulsec?


Change is coming. Full stop period

Playing the same way as the rules change around you is not advised. This is not a thread to decide IF the change is happening but modifications to the form.

CCP stated the objectives in the OP.

Me, I hope to hell that there is some balkanization but I do not want to see the megas die nor do I want the little guys killed off faster than a corner grocery when Walmart comes to town.

There should be room for both.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯