These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7881 - 2014-10-08 22:36:44 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Regardless of the value of B you choose, you're still giving an arbitrary advantage to movement around or near a central point of your own choosing. Why the hell would you do that? Why would it be advantageous from a game design standpoint to make short range teleportation less costly for a defender than an attacker? What possible reason would you want that?


Since it's pretty clear that you don't have an idea how nullsec warfare works, let me explain.

When someone moves to attack a location, they move their fleets to what is known as a "Staging System". Both the attackers AND the defenders have such a system, which they base their fleets out of. By implementing a change such as [No increase for jumping back to origin], then this allows for meaningful combat at the alliance/coalition warfare level by either the attacker OR the defender- provided that they were able to successfully set up a staging system.

The intent for these changes is to inhibit people from being able to cross the entire map in under 30 minutes to join in to a cap fight. By enabling two forces to easily move in a 5 ly area around their origin, that will entice more, smaller, engagements rather than one large engagement.

Since it's pretty clear that you have missed my point, let me explain.

Regardless of the existence of "staging systems", which were far more important when we actually had to take gates and couldn't just teleport around the map, the issue is that you're treating one form of teleportation (moving around a central location) preferentially over another (unidirectional movement). In order to justify that, you have to have a damn good reason. Facilitating current modes of gameplay is not necessarily a damn good reason, particularly since the whole reason for implementing a jump fatigue and timer mechanic is to change the current modes of gameplay.

In addition, since I can see that you aren't terribly savvy when it comes to implications, an attacker will still have to jump towards the defender. This means that an attacker will always be operating farther from his "staging system" than the defender, who will always have the geographic advantage of the interior lines. Under this exponential system of gaining fatigue based on distance from the origin, the attacker will always accumulate fatigue at a significantly higher rate than the defender.

Finally, this means that subcap defense fleets can continue to use jump bridge networks to counter invaders with minimal jump fatigue buildup. Not only do they have the above advantage of interior lines, they generally have to cover far less distance to begin with. Forcing subcap fleets to actually take gates or actually have to make tradeoffs when deciding to bridge ahead of a roaming gang would balance the scales a bit better than the current "hurr hurr we're everywhere you want to be n00b".

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#7882 - 2014-10-08 22:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Alavaria Fera wrote:
FurBurger PotPie wrote:
And there's the part where CCP said the ice belt changes would make certain that Ice in null would provide the majority of the ice resources need in game and now they've virtually destroyed the ability of those null ice resources to get to hisec where they can be sold to the hisec ice product users who wouldn't be able to produce all the ice resources they needed.

Oh snap, you mean this might make highsec suffer a little?

Say it isn't so...

I think you got it a bit wrong.
Is not highsec will suffer but those who mine the ice in nulsec, that will have far less use than it now does.
Much of the ice product from nul was utilized for capital ship movements. Capital ships will not be traversing nul anything like they do now so will need far less fuel.
Ice products used by highsec manufacturers will go up in price due to the increased difficulty of getting the product to market.

Large nulsec groups will suffer little as they have the space and resources to produce a large amount of their needs locally.
Smaller nulsec groups will still need to rely on highsec markets for supplies or create relationships with the power blocks to acquire what they need - Just what we need in nul, more blues.

Highsec manufacturers will be paying more for nulsec produced commodities.
Nulsec consumers will pay more for those products produced in highsec they are unable to produce themselves.

Seems like a lose lose to me.

Worst case - as sov becomes harder to maintain for the blocks and becomes divided into smaller "independent" groups, the reliance on "blue" becomes more important. No one region in nulsec can produce everything the occupants would need, so corps and alliances will need "friends" in other regions to get what they need.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7883 - 2014-10-08 22:49:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Omniblivion
Veskrashen wrote:

Since it's pretty clear that you have missed my point, let me explain.

Regardless of the existence of "staging systems", which were far more important when we actually had to take gates and couldn't just teleport around the map, the issue is that you're treating one form of teleportation (moving around a central location) preferentially over another (unidirectional movement). In order to justify that, you have to have a damn good reason. Facilitating current modes of gameplay is not necessarily a damn good reason, particularly since the whole reason for implementing a jump fatigue and timer mechanic is to change the current modes of gameplay.

In addition, since I can see that you aren't terribly savvy when it comes to implications, an attacker will still have to jump towards the defender. This means that an attacker will always be operating farther from his "staging system" than the defender, who will always have the geographic advantage of the interior lines. Under this exponential system of gaining fatigue based on distance from the origin, the attacker will always accumulate fatigue at a significantly higher rate than the defender.

Finally, this means that subcap defense fleets can continue to use jump bridge networks to counter invaders with minimal jump fatigue buildup. Not only do they have the above advantage of interior lines, they generally have to cover far less distance to begin with. Forcing subcap fleets to actually take gates or actually have to make tradeoffs when deciding to bridge ahead of a roaming gang would balance the scales a bit better than the current "hurr hurr we're everywhere you want to be n00b".


1) The vast majority of nullsec warfare happens at a subcap level. Seeing as your gallente militia alliance probably doesn't engage in sov warfare, nor hold sov, you don't understand that most fleets travel solely by gates already. Cap fleets are a whole other issue, which is what this solution is intended to nerf. The factor you're missing is the jump bridge system, but again, you don't have any jump bridges so I can't tell if you've actually used one.

2) If you think that attackers are jumping directly into combat from their home space rather than from their staging system, then you're in for a bad time. Furthermore, the "defending" staging system is generally not on the front lines but behind a buffer of systems.

3) With the proposed formula, jump bridges would be viable to defend one region, but not jump from Deklein -> Delve. I don't know what sov warfare you've been a part of, but titan bridges generally only happen from your staging system outwards- rarely ever do you not take gates (or get blown up) back home.

But please, continue to tell us about nullsec from your Gallente FW alliance.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7884 - 2014-10-08 23:19:39 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
No. It's an example of a CSM member trying to water down a much needed change so it has little to no effect on the current situation.

i'd like to point out how much reasoned thought marlona was able to put into his one-sentence reply to multiple paragraphs of well-reasoned argument

how can you not be convinced by marlona's screeching that anyone doing anything is plotting against everyone


I never said anyone. But feel free to continue to put words in my mouth.


I'm not sure how much ground you have to stand on to complain about people putting things in your mouth, considering your own willingness to do it to others. We can only hope your obsession remains limited to words. In any case, the reality, to quote what I've said to CCP, is that jump bridges being a no-brained to use isn't any more interesting than them being a no-brainer to NOT use, which is effectively what they're proposing. Had you bothered to examine what I'm suggesting you'd have seen that rapid use of multiple bridges in sequence, as fast as cooldowns allow, still piles on a penalty. To recall my figures from back home for example, blitzing YA0 to CAZD would take 15 minutes or so. Possibly 20 - I don't recall offhand, but it was nevertheless very close to gates being preferable. On the other hand, a more leisurely pace such as what someone roaming on defense might engage in - a bridge or two every twenty minutes or so, camping and skirmishing in between, would see minimal hindrance, again, unless they opted to blitz a few gates. Then they must ask - is catching this guy worth the wait, what if someone else escapes? And of course the numbers could easily be tuned to produce a slightly less favorable outcome for local travel too, as balancing dictates. There is, after all, an enormous gulf between no-brainer bridges of now, and the never use 'em bridges of phoebe to work within.

Besides, there is ample precedent for the idea that bridges shouldn't be nerfed as much. I'm really only following his inspiring precedent here.

precedent wrote:
Each teleportation mechanic will not necessarily have the same pull on the PPP as the distance they are teleporting. i.e. a titan bridge that is 10 light years will drain the PPP by 10, but traveling 10 light years via a POS jump bridge will pull 8 light years from the PPP. This is due to the titan bridge being a more powerful form of teleportation for obvious reasons.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7885 - 2014-10-08 23:32:35 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Besides, there is ample precedent for the idea that bridges shouldn't be nerfed as much. I'm really only following his inspiring precedent here.

precedent wrote:
Each teleportation mechanic will not necessarily have the same pull on the PPP as the distance they are teleporting. i.e. a titan bridge that is 10 light years will drain the PPP by 10, but traveling 10 light years via a POS jump bridge will pull 8 light years from the PPP. This is due to the titan bridge being a more powerful form of teleportation for obvious reasons.

Interesting, you must be trying to get us to give their terrible blog pageviews eh.

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 ?
Brittney Calm
Escape from Darkness
#7886 - 2014-10-08 23:38:22 UTC
Here is my results with a titan and black ops on sisi testing the new jump changes.

1. Titan pilot + pilot that goes through the portal get jump fatigue.
2. Titan gets 2 minute jump timer and 22 minutes of fatigue same as pilots
3. After bridging into the system before the fatigue displayed on screen there is horrible lag, if you had a big fleet this would suck as it seemed like tidi but was just waiting to load the new grid with the fatigue timer.
4. Jump range showing 6.5 light years max jump distance with all skills at 5
5. Jump lag on the return trip seems even worse to load the fatigue timer.
6. There was what seemed inconsistent bug of being to log off the titan with fatigue, kept getting external factors are preventing the command from executing after bridging a fleet through titan and safe logging the titan... I will test this more to see if I can reproduce on black ops.
7. Total experience was painful, would have been easier to take the 8 gates then to bridge.. The fatigue lag after bridging was the worse with more then 5 pilots.

I can test other scenario's if anyone can think of other to test.

-BC
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7887 - 2014-10-08 23:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Brittney Calm wrote:
Here is my results with a titan and black ops on sisi testing the new jump changes.

1. Titan pilot + pilot that goes through the portal get jump fatigue.
2. Titan gets 2 minute jump timer and 22 minutes of fatigue same as pilots
3. After bridging into the system before the fatigue displayed on screen there is horrible lag, if you had a big fleet this would suck as it seemed like tidi but was just waiting to load the new grid with the fatigue timer.
4. Jump range showing 6.5 light years max jump distance with all skills at 5
5. Jump lag on the return trip seems even worse to load the fatigue timer.
6. There was what seemed inconsistent bug of being to log off the titan with fatigue, kept getting external factors are preventing the command from executing after bridging a fleet through titan and safe logging the titan... I will test this more to see if I can reproduce on black ops.
7. Total experience was painful, would have been easier to take the 8 gates then to bridge.. The fatigue lag after bridging was the worse with more then 5 pilots.

Sounds like a solid success


Also, this bit:
Brittney Calm wrote:
6. There was what seemed inconsistent bug of being to log off the titan with fatigue, kept getting external factors are preventing the command from executing after bridging a fleet through titan and safe logging the titan...

Vince Draken's boys will probably want to double check this; potential for more titan kills??

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 ?
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7888 - 2014-10-08 23:46:02 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:


So, it would then depend on B. But as long as B is not zero then no, you don't zero out your fatigue by jumping back to orgin.


Actually since X^0 = 1, you never zero fatigue. Practically speaking B isn't necessary at all, but without it the formula was a little TOO generous to near home travel, and it's a useful tuning factor.

As far as caches go...why is everyone so obsessed with the idea? You still have to get to them the hard way, where you can operate is limited by them, and once you start depleting them you've got to restock them the hard way. That's trouble in an extended conflict.

Besides, caches are theoretically a possibility with CCP's system.

Gwailar wrote:


Still reducing fatigue without the passage of time, which breaks the whole thing.
But not quite to 1.

Uh...I'll have to wait till I'm home to show this, but no. A jump never causes your fatigue to drop.

Veskrashen wrote:
Regardless of the value of B you choose, you're still giving an arbitrary advantage to movement around or near a central point of your own choosing. Why the hell would you do that? Why would it be advantageous from a game design standpoint to make short range teleportation less costly for a defender than an attacker? What possible reason would you want that?
.

Attacker gates across eve and parks in his staging system. As they didn't jump on the way there, their origin is set to their staging system, and attacker & defender are now on very close to equal footing. It's not like origin is set once and never changes.

What the attacker can't do anymore is cyno across eve in 20 minutes.

I'll catch more replies once I'm home.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#7889 - 2014-10-08 23:46:14 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Thinking about it, it would make sense to just have (1==B; then your fatigue would not increase for jumping back to your origin.


While I'm not sold on the original equation being a good idea, this is possibly the most reasonable thing anyone has said in three pages.

Also, quoting the original formula here:
mynnna wrote:
Fatigue = (Fatigue Before Jump + Distance of Jump)^(Destination Distance from Origin * A + B)

A lot of people seem to be misreading that caret ('^') as a multiplication instead of an exponentiation. Using the original suggested value of 0.3, a jump back to your starting system would suddenly take whatever your previous fatigue was and reduce it to the cube root of its current value when you arrive back at base, rather than simply dividing it by three. That's a lot more powerful. Was this actually supposed to be an exponent, or was it supposed to be multiplication like the dev blog used?

Actually, this is even worse than I thought originally. I picked some numbers for A and B that make the math easy...
Let's try A=0.2 B=1. Jumping out 5LY gets you 5^2 = 25. Jumping back will get you 30. At 1/minute, which is ten times the rate that CCP originally proposed, this isn't enormously unreasonable, and it's not hard to multiply all the numbers by 10. Going another 5 LY in a straight line in the other direction immediately would get you 30^3 = 27000, which is a problem. That would take 450 hours to tick down at 1/minute, which is on the order of two weeks. Meanwhile, the CCP solution would actually only take around 6 hours. (If we ignore the jump drive cooldown, 5LY -> 6 fatigue, which, and then another 5 LY would put us up to 36 fatigue. With CCP's 0.1 decay, this takes about 6 hours to decay.)

Let's compare to an A value of 0.5 and a B value of 0.5, if you jump 5LY out, you'd get 5^(2.5+0.3) = 5^3 = 125 fatigue. On the way back, you'd have 130^(0.5), which drops you down to approximately 11.5 fatigue. Either the first number is incredibly harsh (requiring over a week to tick down at 0.1/minute) or the second one is minuscule: sit around for ten minutes or so (at 1/minute) waiting for the next target and you're good to go do anything again. This is great for blops, but I don't think they actually want carriers to be able to do this.

However, it gets worse!
In cases where B<1, if your "home system" has a jump bridge in it, you can take gates out to the other end of the jump bridge and jump through, reducing your current fatigue to a root of what it already was. You can keep doing that until you think it's something manageable. With a pair of titans and a short jump, you could launder the fatigue of entire fleets as long as you did it from the system that you had originally jumped from. You might even be able to reduce your fatigue coming *and* going if you do it right.

Essentially, this is trivially exploitable if it's going to be any use for what Mynnna is trying to do.
It's possible that a very small A (0.05 does seem to be close to the target) and a B of 1 or more might work. It won't ramp quite as fast at low fatigues and will ramp significantly faster once fatigue gets higher, though. It would also end up being almost as complicated as the tracking and missile damage formulas, and I think the devs regret those being so complicated now.

All of the above number-crunching aside, I dislike "home system" mechanics, especially ones you don't have much control over. System mastery is a thing, and developing system mastery is fun to a certain type of person. (of which I consider myself an example) However, in this case, I think it is the kind of system mastery that sets traps and penalizes you for falling into them, rather than the kind of system mastery that provides extra effectiveness if you do things well.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7890 - 2014-10-08 23:49:26 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
1) The vast majority of nullsec warfare happens at a subcap level. Seeing as your gallente militia alliance probably doesn't engage in sov warfare, nor hold sov, you don't understand that most fleets travel solely by gates already. Cap fleets are a whole other issue, which is what this solution is intended to nerf. The factor you're missing is the jump bridge system, but again, you don't have any jump bridges so I can't tell if you've actually used one.

2) If you think that attackers are jumping directly into combat from their home space rather than from their staging system, then you're in for a bad time. Furthermore, the "defending" staging system is generally not on the front lines but behind a buffer of systems.

3) With the proposed formula, jump bridges would be viable to defend one region, but not jump from Deklein -> Delve. I don't know what sov warfare you've been a part of, but titan bridges generally only happen from your staging system outwards- rarely ever do you not take gates (or get blown up) back home.

But please, continue to tell us about nullsec from your Gallente FW alliance.

1. Even the subcaps generally use Titans to move, and considering my final paragraph was all about the advantage that jump bridges currently give defenders. And if the folks attacking you are closer to their target than you are, you're doing something seriously wrong.

2. I was actually talking about distance from staging system to target, but by all means go ahead and continue to fail at reading comprehension.

3. Yes, I'm aware you wouldn't be able to move from Dek -> Delve, either with the original CCP proposal or with Mynna's. Of course, we were discussing the advantages that short range teleportation gives to a defender, especially under Mynna's proposal, but by all means strawman away. Also, if you're not taking advantage of your home field jump bridge network to cut off a subcap fleet, again, you're doing it wrong.

You're absolutely right that I've not done sov warfare under the current system. Instead, I did nullsec warfare from '03-'08, back when things were actually difficult. But hey - people can't possibly look at a system and draw intelligent conclusions if they're not CFC/N3/PL. Because reasons.

On a side note, if you don't think that GalMil's experience over the past year+ of attrition warfare doesn't have parallels to the post-jump nerf, you're really really short sighted.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7891 - 2014-10-08 23:54:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Veskrashen wrote:
Regardless of the value of B you choose, you're still giving an arbitrary advantage to movement around or near a central point of your own choosing. Why the hell would you do that? Why would it be advantageous from a game design standpoint to make short range teleportation less costly for a defender than an attacker? What possible reason would you want that?
.

Attacker gates across eve and parks in his staging system. As they didn't jump on the way there, their origin is set to their staging system, and attacker & defender are now on very close to equal footing. It's not like origin is set once and never changes.

What the attacker can't do anymore is cyno across eve in 20 minutes.

Again, if you're letting the attacker be closer to his targets than your staging system, you're doing it wrong. Since I don't think anyone who is serious about bloc warfare is under any illusion that Gewns / CFC is stupid, I pretty much assume that as soon as a credible threat starts staging within jump range of Gewnville you'll shift your assets accordingly. Thus, my assertion that a competent defender will always have a shorter reship / jump distance to potential targets than their attackers.

And yes, I'm aware that their "origin" will be set to their staging system, since they haven't jumped yet. I'm also aware they couldn't jump across the galaxy in 20 minutes. None of which actually has any bearing on the issues I raised.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7892 - 2014-10-08 23:59:04 UTC
And CCP is gone!
Once again CCP shows they don't care about your feedback AT ALL!

A couple of posts to feed the trolls, then they simply leave the thread to die.

cause CCP cares.....

Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll.
Jobbered
Lost Legion Of Death
Help Newbes Find a Way Alliance
#7893 - 2014-10-09 00:07:37 UTC
Don't worry. They are going to update everything on Monday. Which Monday is anyone's guess...........
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7894 - 2014-10-09 00:16:12 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Besides, there is ample precedent for the idea that bridges shouldn't be nerfed as much. I'm really only following his inspiring precedent here.

precedent wrote:
Each teleportation mechanic will not necessarily have the same pull on the PPP as the distance they are teleporting. i.e. a titan bridge that is 10 light years will drain the PPP by 10, but traveling 10 light years via a POS jump bridge will pull 8 light years from the PPP. This is due to the titan bridge being a more powerful form of teleportation for obvious reasons.

Interesting, you must be trying to get us to give their terrible blog pageviews eh.

Page hits was never my #1 priority. Hence why I never fit in at TMC. Ugh

As long as CCP is smart enough to have each teleportation mechanic with its own individual 'slider' to adjust how each impacts Jump Fatigue, it will be easy to make adjustments later. Introducing it with extreme advantages for bloc defenders to hyper respond to anyone anywhere in their space is a mistake.
Sibius Aidon
Ascendance Rising
Ascendance..
#7895 - 2014-10-09 00:42:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Thatt Guy wrote:
And CCP is gone!
Once again CCP shows they don't care about your feedback AT ALL!

A couple of posts to feed the trolls, then they simply leave the thread to die.

cause CCP cares.....


There are 8000 posts on this. Do you expect them to gauge and respond to what everyone says? That would take too much time away from other tasks. Just because they don't respond doesn't mean they aren't listening. But it probably does. Who knows.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

Is the ability to push your fatigue up to really high numbers a good idea?
Probably not, no. We're looking at just capping fatigue at like 1 month or something.


That's still too long. Caps should depend on the type of ship, with transports and JF'S taking on the least. Maybe an hour tops. Regardless of that, a week at the most seems reasonable.

P.S. Anyone that is leaving and has a jf...I'll take it off your hands!



Fixed BB coding. ISD Ezwal
This Suxbad
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7896 - 2014-10-09 00:51:48 UTC
This may be too deep in or maybe already mentioned.
Since we are losing the triage carrier as a viable option with these changes.
Could we get a useful logi for black ops? All of the current options have terrible range and a black ops tinker kinda sucks.

Definition of blob is more friends than you! Do you play eve or play eve for others?
Maccian
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7897 - 2014-10-09 00:53:24 UTC
Me and all the low sec people I hang with are excited about these changes!

As a member of a small low sec corp I think these changes will produce more content for us and force us to adapt and change certain ways we play the game, which I am personally looking forward to.

Regarding Black Ops; they should still be the No 1 ship for guerrilla warfare afterwards!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7898 - 2014-10-09 01:03:10 UTC
Ranamar wrote:
:words:

I was sorta scratching my head at what people meant by "it reduces fatigue!" while driving home, since X ^ Y is always >1 for any X > 1 and Y > 0. But I see what you mean, especially having fiddled with my spreadsheet.

I maintain that the general objective is worthwhile, just "find a less exploitable equation" is necessary. P

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#7899 - 2014-10-09 01:18:11 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
:words:

I was sorta scratching my head at what people meant by "it reduces fatigue!" while driving home, since X ^ Y is always >1 for any X > 1 and Y > 0. But I see what you mean, especially having fiddled with my spreadsheet.

I maintain that the general objective is worthwhile, just "find a less exploitable equation" is necessary. P


I still don't like the "home system" thing because it seems like it could easily be really fiddly. For example, if you like blopsing from a system that's one JB from your home station, do you have to take gates just so your "home system" is set to where you blops from instead of the JB you took along the way? You can't let people reset their home base too often or else they will almost certainly gain an advantage by resetting it every jump.

Maybe something like fatigue = (existing fatigue) * [ (distance)^(far-from-home-factor) ] could work, though.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7900 - 2014-10-09 01:20:16 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Ranamar wrote:
:words:

I was sorta scratching my head at what people meant by "it reduces fatigue!" while driving home, since X ^ Y is always >1 for any X > 1 and Y > 0. But I see what you mean, especially having fiddled with my spreadsheet.

I maintain that the general objective is worthwhile, just "find a less exploitable equation" is necessary. P

So basically you just CCPed that.

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 ?