These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Misha Hartmann
Tribal Mist
#7721 - 2014-10-08 11:57:33 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:


motivation is EVERYTHING here.



While I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that Eve is still a game, and a game should not unnecessarily add effort. And ofc the game is meant to be tough, otherwise go play a FPS or the likes, but Eve should be difficult in a fun way (as much as possible)
Mildew Wolf
#7722 - 2014-10-08 11:59:08 UTC
Resubbed +2 accounts

Don't puss out now ccp
Mannington Skank
Capitalism Amuck
Omega Alliance
#7723 - 2014-10-08 11:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
yes you can


*Snip* Please refrain from posting personal information. ISD Ezwal.

Blow me CCP. I regret every single minute I spent playing this game. And sadly, thats a freighter load of minutes.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#7724 - 2014-10-08 12:01:55 UTC
Misha Hartmann wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:


motivation is EVERYTHING here.



While I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that Eve is still a game, and a game should not unnecessarily add effort. And ofc the game is meant to be tough, otherwise go play a FPS or the likes, but Eve should be difficult in a fun way (as much as possible)



That the "FUN" factor was gonna take a huge hit is one thing that a lot of folks in the thread agree on, along with the fact that changes are needed and that 'ripped off' feeling for all the cap training times rendered wasted.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Misha Hartmann
Tribal Mist
#7725 - 2014-10-08 12:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Misha Hartmann
Polo Marco wrote:
Misha Hartmann wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:


motivation is EVERYTHING here.



While I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that Eve is still a game, and a game should not unnecessarily add effort. And ofc the game is meant to be tough, otherwise go play a FPS or the likes, but Eve should be difficult in a fun way (as much as possible)



That the "FUN" factor was gonna take a huge hit is one thing that a lot of folks in the thread agree on, along with the fact that changes are needed and that 'ripped off' feeling for all the cap training times rendered wasted.


Damn, I cant agree more. As I have said before, the changes for the most part, I think, are welcomed by players, as long as JF/rorq's are not nerfed and jump skills are taken into consideration on the fatigue and timers. And then follow ups on Sov mechanics. The proposed clone mechanics also need strong revisiting, im not sure that that is the best solution.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7726 - 2014-10-08 12:04:39 UTC
Mannington Skank wrote:
Perhaps a new game is in order and not this, CCP's Nullsec killer patch --- "the quest for more subscription money".


Make these kinds of changes and still not fix things from years ago (hello walking in stations, hello corp rights interface, hello 714 various sundry bugs, hello mostly broken at patch time Eve Launcher).

Goodbye Mannington Skank a disgruntled 10 year player.

Who wants all my stuff? I cant log in (see broken launcher during patch time above) so Ill just give you my username and password.

Cap ships, billions in isk, billions in mods, billions in ores, hundred of billions in ships. These idiots cant even be bothered to fix the same issue ALOT of us have every single patch and now they are doing this?????!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, Free account here. Its worthless to me now.

gibgibgibgibgibgib
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#7727 - 2014-10-08 12:12:15 UTC
SInce you might have missed it here is my post on sov changes to fix this problem. If they do this they can leave the damned ships alone.....





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.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Drinian Valvante
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7728 - 2014-10-08 12:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Drinian Valvante
Mannington Skank wrote:
Perhaps a new game is in order and not this, CCP's Nullsec killer patch --- "the quest for more subscription money".


Make these kinds of changes and still not fix things from years ago (hello walking in stations, hello corp rights interface, hello 714 various sundry bugs, hello mostly broken at patch time Eve Launcher).

Goodbye Mannington Skank a disgruntled 10 year player.

Who wants all my stuff? I cant log in (see broken launcher during patch time above) so Ill just give you my username and password.

Cap ships, billions in isk, billions in mods, billions in ores, hundred of billions in ships. These idiots cant even be bothered to fix the same issue ALOT of us have every single patch and now they are doing this?????!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, Free account here. Its worthless to me now.


Oh man! I want all your stuff. Pleeaaassseeeeeeee!!!!

Seriously. I'm taking that gamble.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#7729 - 2014-10-08 12:44:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dream Five
Norrin Ellis wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
Note that with 5ly jump range there's _no_ JF route from drone regions to highsec at all that goes near stations, none. There are only 2 stations in the Great Wildlands and they are not within jump range to either empire or drone regions. And you can't have Cynosural Arrays in Great Wildlands either, so you'd have to jump near a POS (and get ganked with 100% confidence by capital gankers watching for cynos with logged off stalker toons in every system and jumping 3 naglfars from a nearby NPC station and alphaing the JF instantly).

So JF logistics to drone regions will actually become more or less impossible.

So this will nerf the drone regions disproportionately compared to most other regions i think.

Stain will also get hit hard but at least there's a route through Catch/Providence.

If i were CCP I'd think about this for a minute before making such a drastic change, the map just doesn't seem to be designed for 5ly jumps.

So, 5 LY is too restrictive for you to get anything done, but everyone else will magically have their capital fleets within 5 LY of you when they want to gank you?

I find that highly unlikely. The crux of the rage in this thread is that people haven't spread their capital assets for short tactical jumps because they've never needed to previously. They teleported from across the cluster. Ergo, it's hard to believe that every nullsec boogeyman has a capital fleet within a 5 LY jump range of wherever you might go.



You find it unlikely but in reality it's extremely trivial. You sit with 2 dreads in one of the only stations in Great Wildlands (probably N-DQ0D) and wait for cynos to light up in one of the systems in the region, log in on yoru alt prepositioned in that system, drop your dreads and kill JFs. Drone regions logistics is FUBAR after this change. Not to mention it's like 20 jumps from Colbalt Edge to nearest reachable empire station, which would be Egbinger with these changes (gasp)

You'll be fartigued into oblivions.

And BTW i'm not saying it's necessarily bad, it's just drastically different game rules. TBH i think the fatigue alone is mega drastic enough, but both of these changes combined just make you wonder if CCP actually anticipated some of the obviously mega drastic consequences.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#7730 - 2014-10-08 12:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
387 pages. Damn this is going to be one hell of an 'We TOLD you so" thread to link in 6 months when it's clear that not only did not of this work, but it made things worse Twisted

Edit: forgot to add old "we told you so" link as an example.

Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it?
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#7731 - 2014-10-08 12:47:29 UTC
After reading a lot of posts in this threadnaught, I am still of the opinion that this is a good idea with a **** poor application.

I like that it heavily limits power projection and causes the big blocs to spead their forces in order to maintain their territories. I am not sure thatthis alone will break up/shrink the biggest blocs, but territorial maintenance will be more work.

Mechanically, they could smack this puppy with a much smaller nerf bat. A carrier has a maximum of 13 LY jump range with mad skillz. Smacking it all the way back to 5 is a bit too far, especially when you add in the jump fatigue mechanic. I don't care to dig all the way back, but I think after just two or three jumps the cool down was over two hours. Stunning. That is as much time as most people have to play a day.

The idea could be improved by allowing for a longer jump range at mad skillz. I know 5 LY isn't enough, but 10 LY is too much. I guess 7.5 LY is it.

Next, address jump fatigue. Cut the cool down severely with the knowledge that not all jump-capable ships run in LOL Blobs. I look at this mechanic from the point of view of a "little guy". A two hour cool down would kill my game play experience.

Perhaps put 15 minutes cool down per jump, reduceable to 10 with mad skillz. I think this would be enough, coupled with the shorter range, to still cause the big blocs to spread their assets wider in order to defend their territories.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
ORLICZ
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7732 - 2014-10-08 12:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ORLICZ
as a JF pilot - NO for JF changes - 0.0 needs logistics, jf and rorqs cant move capital fleets..so...

as a 0.0 pilot - YES - we need small kingdoms in eve, leave 5 LY, less fatique but then make max allowed jumps per cyno- example 20
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7733 - 2014-10-08 13:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
I've been playing with this for a couple days, and here's the adjustment I propose:

Fatigue = (Fatigue Before Jump + Distance of Jump)^(Destination Distance from Origin * A + B)

Distance from origin is just the straight-line distance in light years. Origin is set when you make a jump with 0 fatigue and can be reset when you are back to 0 fatigue (it could also be available to reset after a period of time of several hours regardless of fatigue, which is also interesting). A and B are just constants to tweak for balance. A sets how far from your origin you can go before fatigue really starts ramping up quickly; that distance is 1/A light years. B is just a tuning knob, especially handy for tweaking the effect on short range travel. Individual ships could get bonuses to one or the other, as well. All the other mechanics about fatigue work identically. A = 0.05 and B = .3 generate interesting results, for sure.

The effect of this is that short range travel, such as within your own region, isn't punished as though it's exactly like long distance travel. It's important to note that that isn't the same as "not punished at all" but rather that it imposes interesting choice on that movement. The industry player might ask himself whether he wants to take a gate to the expensive factory next door (three minute round trip, for example) or the bridge to the factory in the next constellation, which is cheaper but has a six minute round trip. The pilot PvPing and defending his home from roamers might decide whether taking that third bridge in two hours is worth the ten minute wait, worth not being able to get back around in that time. As proposed by the blog, neither player can make more than a few jumps before effectively losing the ability for the entire play session. Heck, even the force seeking to cross a long distance in EVE can decide whether they want to get there faster or avoid obstacles but impair their mobility upon arrival, or take it slow but have more full mobility. And in an invasion, both the invaders and defenders would have the benefit of their cyno movement being local and so somewhat less restricted, allowing for a nice balance between the current paradigm where the target region plus three regions surrounding it are the battlefield, and the paradigm of this blog. where lack of mobility restricts the battlefield to just one or two systems.

It also nicely addresses some complaints of the thread. Blackops battleships don't get rendered completely ineffectual, because most of their movement takes place within a limited distance from a staging location. Jump Freighters would get hit far less hard, because half of their movement would be back towards their origin.

The fatigue mechanic in general has plenty of promise and is an elegant solution to what most acknowledge as a problem in EVE, but crushing nullsec quality of life in the process isn't necessary - the method above addresses that.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#7734 - 2014-10-08 13:25:57 UTC
I have removed some replies to an edited out part of the post they replied to.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#7735 - 2014-10-08 13:30:26 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Toriessian wrote:
Is it worth continuing to whine about BLOPS?


CCP said they were going take a more active look at Black Ops in Rhea ( december ) since these changes hit them way too hard
other than that no because more tears here would be comparable to a biblical flood once the containers rupture


Where was this said? Any links?

Every day I'm wafflin!
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#7736 - 2014-10-08 13:38:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
387 pages. Damn this is going to be one hell of an 'We TOLD you so" thread to link in 6 months when it's clear that not only did not of this work, but it made things worse Twisted

Edit: forgot to add old "we told you so" link as an example.

Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it?


Control freak much?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#7737 - 2014-10-08 13:40:42 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
387 pages. Damn this is going to be one hell of an 'We TOLD you so" thread to link in 6 months when it's clear that not only did not of this work, but it made things worse Twisted

Edit: forgot to add old "we told you so" link as an example.

Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it?


Control freak much?



Say again?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7738 - 2014-10-08 13:46:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
387 pages. Damn this is going to be one hell of an 'We TOLD you so" thread to link in 6 months when it's clear that not only did not of this work, but it made things worse Twisted

Edit: forgot to add old "we told you so" link as an example.

Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it?


Control freak much?



Say again?

Recommend disengage. The enemy is driven by emotion.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#7739 - 2014-10-08 13:49:12 UTC
Now I know what this thread reminds me of.

Who else remembers the absolute flood of rage and tears when CCP capped the number of jump bridges in a system to 1?

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Alty McAltypants
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7740 - 2014-10-08 13:49:42 UTC
Hi CCP Logibro,

Just my concerns.

CCP Logibro wrote:
What is changing?

We are going to allow capital ships to use gates in lowsec/nullsec, and we are aiming to make gate-to-gate travel take less time than jump travel over distances of more than ~20 LY. We've run simulations for capital ships travelling between arbitrary pairs of systems, and settled on the target movement speed of no less than 3 minutes per lightyear for travel over 20 LY. This should allow us to bring about the main change we want to see – less sustained use of jump travel – while still preserving its value for short bursts of movement.


Concern 1: Cap fleets will still be prescient
By adding timers and making travel time slower, pre fleet engagement and maneuvering will be important, pos timers important, etc. Ultimately a system or two could be "sacrificed" in order to allow time for fatigue to reduce and capitals to be positioned. Capital ship positioning and staging would become more important but ultimately nothing would have changed.

Concern 2: Capital proliferation in general
By slowing travel down, you may increase the need to station multiple capital fleets around the New Eden. Of course, I understand fatigue will follow a character if they jump clone but again little has changed other than organization and preparation.

Concern 3: Low sec capital proliferation
CCP Logibro, wrote:
These changes have positive implications for people not involved in sovereignty warfare, for example making use of capitals in lowsec less risky.

I don't understand and don't agree with this statement. Low sec is intrinsic to sovereignty warfare, acting as staging posts, choke points, logistics, moon mining in low sec could be argued to contribute to 0.0 holders, not to mention it is through low sec that you access 0.0. By introducing fatigue and jump timers, you make the use of capitals in low sec more risky in my opinion. To mitigate this risk, I would expect to see more capitals in low sec and all the associated implications.

Concern 4: "Nullsec is stagnant and needs a change. This is the first of many steps in our plan."
Yes, but this change could simply prolong the status quo. My concern would be that, as mentioned, you simply have multiple fleets in multiple locations and/or will encourage alliances to maintain the status quo in order to build and make said capital fleets for their locals. To use the BOB phrase this change will "push the pendulum" towards more caps in strategic areas not less. Your changes could make 0.0 more stagnant than less so.

Concern 5: "Big fights are cool, but they’re crowding out more accessible and more frequent smaller ones."
By smaller, I assume you mean sub cap fights. It is difficult to see how fatigue and jump timers will achieve this. You will limit the "bat phone" hot drop, but a fleet of HACs heading to an alliance stronghold is just as likely to by hotdropped. The landscape of New Eden is therefore likely to remain similar if not the same.

Comment 6: Medium-term changes
CCP Logibro wrote:
Phase Two is focused on medium-term changes to the ways that organizations capture and hold Nullsec space and infrastructure...etc

It may have been better to have started with how organizations capture and hold null sec and space rather than with capital ships travel/movement. Now it seems you will have to introduce game mechanics which will arbitrarily force players to use non cap ships for certain objectives when Phase Two is rolled out. As with these changes to travel, this may feel non-organic and forced Sad

Comment 7: Logistics
Unto and from Jita shall the riches of New Eden flow. This chain places inertia in the logistics train making it tedious and longer but not changing the risk factors. You could argue that the slower the logistic train runs the more risky it is to conduct, but I suspect it will just become a matter of how to manage the time until timers elapse.

Comment 8: Management of Change
CCP Logibro wrote:
By splitting the task of improving Nullsec into manageable chunks, we are ensuring that we get you the best changes as quickly as possible rather than holding back needed updates. We’re happy to be getting the first significant chunk of these changes out to you all later this year.

When you introduce fatigue and timers to provide inertia to capital ship movement you are not addressing the underlying issue. You are introducing a game mechanic to force gameplay to change in order to mitigate a type of gameplay. I worry this will defeat the purpose and philosophy of the EVE sandbox.

Peace and love