These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tikitina
Doomheim
#161 - 2014-10-09 19:29:42 UTC
Obunagawe wrote:
Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations.



I don't agree with this to be honest. They can be parked in a CSMA. CCP just needs to fix the role/rights thing.
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#162 - 2014-10-09 19:31:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
... if it is, we'll just nerf it.


That put a little smile on your face, too eh? :P

I like the attitude, I hope you tackle the surrounding issues with the same energy for the next steps we need to take to get rid of large coalitions. Just make sure there are enough options and incentives to get rid of the current status quo.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2014-10-09 19:32:19 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Jump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction.


CCP Greyscale, you Sir have just shown you are a professional! Waiting-game can now be handled. Nice work!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
Etrei Kordisin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#164 - 2014-10-09 19:32:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Etrei Kordisin wrote:
It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.


It's not a question of trust, it's a question of a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it. The goals of this change are pretty clear, and we're keen to follow up and ensure that we hit them over time.


Yes, it is entirely viable in practice to use ships that cost ~2m isk and an hour of skill training in order to avoid fatigue. The only slightly tricky part involved is having two caches of ships; which I am sure you will agree is no issue at all for alliances.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#165 - 2014-10-09 19:32:30 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Quoting first post:

Quote:
The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be.
It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.


Well... where do you want nullsec industry to be?
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#166 - 2014-10-09 19:32:45 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Querns wrote:
Mixed feelings on this.

* I am really happy that non-combatant hauling ships are getting the 90% fatigue reduction -- that is something I had been pushing for and I'm happy you guys saw the light on that. Maybe extend this to mining ships, too?
* Pretty sad to see JFs getting 10LY range. Their 5LY range allowed for some meaningful ability to disrupt incoming logistics. 10LY eliminates a lot of possibilities here.
* Rorquals not getting the 10LY treatment is a little weird. Care to elaborate on why only JFs get the extra range?


I agree with this. Bumping jump freighters to 10 enables a heck of a lot of room for selling your garbage to Jita, but I get the issue of multiple cyno alts and stuff.


why should anyone be happy with EVE becoming anymore a Game of Alts than it already is. And that is all the 5 LY range was going to result in. We should want a game that isn't about having 7 accounts with 10 cyno alts and a bunch of niche characters that get logged in and out.

Totally understand the desire to "disrupt incoming logistics", which more often than not translates into nothing more than "gank a freighter" rather than actual interdiction of logistics. I'd be pretty surprised if many kills related to logistics had anything at all to do with disrupting logistics.
Quincy Thibaud
Perkone
Caldari State
#167 - 2014-10-09 19:33:23 UTC
These changes look very reasonable, but while you are at it with Blackops Battleships, how about bringing the mass of the ships down more in line with the Marauders or T1 battleships?
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#168 - 2014-10-09 19:33:37 UTC
The whole fatigue thing still sounds over complex, opaque, annoying to implement, and frustrating to track. Now you're having to go back and make exception after exception. I'd really just prefer you take the entire concept back to the drawing board. Nerfing combat capital jump drives and adding a jump timer just sounds so much easier then all of this. I feel like 5 years from now someone will just be cleaning all this messy crap up. It's just uselessly complex for what it offers.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#169 - 2014-10-09 19:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Most of these changes look "ok".

The main one however:

Quote:
•Jump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction. This represents a slight range reduction compared to TQ, so some cynos will need to be repositioned, but otherwise leaves them largely alone.


Completely undoes a lot of the good that the original changes promised. AFK remote empires online goes from "completely untenable" to "business as usual" in one single change. The roars of approval from GS should be sign enough that, if the aim is upsetting the status quo, this change is a bad one.

I would be interested in why CCP felt it necessary to completely neuter this change. I get that 5LY was too punitive to logistics and left too many regions out of reach, but 10LY with 90% fatigue reduction is practically business as usual.

Please could CCP consider dropping the 90% fatigue reduction from Jump Freighters as the tradeoff for this change. Force players to make a meaningful choice - Bridge a freighter or some transports 5LY with 90% fatigue reduction, or Jump a JF 10LY but only get to do it once or twice before fatigue becomes a real issue.

Otherwise what we will see is what we currently see - JFs and bridge networks meaning logistics (meaning fuel and munitions) can be provided anywhere in eve very quickly risk free. Forcing JFs to use the occasional gate was going to make this aspect of eve so much more interesting, but now that is a thing of the past.


The idea that JFs are a friend to nullsec industry is a curious one - surely the ease of transport of materials from Jita in JFs is the single biggest reason there ISNT any nullsec industry?
Aerich e'Kieron
Peace.Keepers
#170 - 2014-10-09 19:37:26 UTC
I love the changes otherwise, but I can't believe they caved and all-but exempted JFs to any hard changes.

What a waste.


It just sucks that even though you say you're not happy with nullsec industry and are looking to change it, you somehow manage to decide to revert the changes that would have helped, to be nothing more than a very minor inconvenience, remove basically any extra risk that may have came with the original proposal, and slow them down hardly at all.

Basically, leaving them not significantly effected by this.
A slight slap on the wrist as if to say "We watching you, even if we we're not going to do anything!"

It's not just 5ly vs 10ly.
That doubled distance, DRASTICALLY changes the ease at which you can move around the map.
5ly would have actually made the topology of the map hugely more significant and altered routes to reflect that.
10ly they're basically keeping the routes they had before the change, with maybe a few extra cynos.

If you're going to keep the 10ly range, you should have cut their fatigue reduction bonus to 50%.

Jump range is the radius of a sphere. 10ly is significantly more coverage than 5ly even apart from the map.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#171 - 2014-10-09 19:38:42 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Quoting first post:

Quote:
The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be.
It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.


Well... where do you want nullsec industry to be?


Supplying asylums with fresh patients, presumably.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#172 - 2014-10-09 19:38:51 UTC
Greyscale, the rest doesn't need to happen. The jump freighter range change, ok that's fine.

Everything else doesn't need to happen, as you are backwards adding power back into a system that you have not even tried yet.

Follow your own basis for game scaling. Remove the rest of the changes, except the jump freighter one, and test to see what happens.

There's no need to set scaling for fatigue per ship, as people are merely trying to add in exceptions to the jump changes to get the game back to business as usual.

Jump freighter change, ok.

The rest, is not needed.

Yaay!!!!
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#173 - 2014-10-09 19:40:26 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Most of these changes look "ok".

The main one however:

Quote:
•Jump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction. This represents a slight range reduction compared to TQ, so some cynos will need to be repositioned, but otherwise leaves them largely alone.


Completely undoes a lot of the good that the original changes promised. AFK remote empires online goes from "completely untenable" to "business as usual" in one single change.

I would be interested in why CCP felt it necessary to completely neuter this change. I get that 5LY was too punitive, but 10LY with 90% fatigue reduction is practically business as usual.

Please could CCP consider dropping the 90% fatigue reduction from Jump Freighters as the tradeoff for this change. Force players to make a meaningful choice!


Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2014-10-09 19:40:28 UTC
Going to wait till tonight to mull these changes over. Dentist drugs are unwise for posting.
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#175 - 2014-10-09 19:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Overlord Invictus
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Here, let me quote a little snippet of the blog that you might've missed:



so basically the line you're towing is we cannot critique the changes because if we do your retort is that there are more changes on the way that may or may not quell your issues, but unfortunately for you, you will not know if theyre going to make life better until you're fully chained down and lubed up (ie fully committed to the full plan)?
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#176 - 2014-10-09 19:42:18 UTC
Tikitina wrote:
Obunagawe wrote:
Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations.

I don't agree with this to be honest. They can be parked in a CSMA. CCP just needs to fix the role/rights thing.

Especially since moving station - station is what makes JFs so hard to interdict. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to allow risk-free movement for supercapitals.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#177 - 2014-10-09 19:42:41 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc.


Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#178 - 2014-10-09 19:43:53 UTC
Shuttles have a hauling role according to ISIS, does that mean they'll be getting the fatigue reduction as well?
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#179 - 2014-10-09 19:45:02 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Marius Noragol wrote:
Logistics would be one thing that would create a lot of content. I was picturing forming fleets to escort a convoi of freighters and other fleets jumping in to gank and kill said freighters.

This is likely coming down the pipe, but apparently according to CCP nullsec industry won't be able to cope in the 4 weeks between now and the proposed changes. Fortunately, given the 6 week cycle, CCP can impose any changes they choose in 6 more weeks. Hell, they could even progressively nerf JF range patch by patch - say 10LY now, then 8, then 6.5 and finally 5. That would give folks plenty of time to adjust and allow nullsec industry to ramp up more slowly.


There's no smooth progressive nerfing of JF range, anywhere under 10 will cut off Stain and Drone regions entirely while leaving (i think) all other regions mostly intact. The map just wasn't designed for sub-10 ly jumps. Such a change would be simply unfair to some of the existing inhabitants.

Also freighters have no resists so keep in mind that they are basically indefensible against even small BC fleets.

It basically will amount to scout, go/no go. Engagements will be even much more so avoided than most engagements in EVE are.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#180 - 2014-10-09 19:46:34 UTC
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:
It just sucks that even though you say you're not happy with nullsec industry and are looking to change it, you somehow manage to decide to revert the changes that would have helped, to be nothing more than a very minor inconvenience, remove basically any extra risk that may have came with the original proposal, and slow them down hardly at all.

Basically, leaving them not significantly effected by this.
A slight slap on the wrist as if to say "We watching you, even if we we're not going to do anything!"

I wish they would have been able to do it all in one go, but CCP has better access to the data than we do, and better access to the guys that actually run the null blocs. I'm betting that things were de-nerfed because of that. I'm also pretty confident that it had a lot more to do with nullsec resource availability than anything else - CCP Greyscale's OP in this thread clearly stated that they're not happy with how nullsec logistics is currently done, but that systems aren't in place that would have allowed nullsec to function with a 5LY JF.

It sucks, and it really sucks that those of us who were most excited about the implications of such a severe logistics nerf got their shiny toy taken away. It also means that they can't ***** when the changes DO come through.

It'll happen, just ain't happening now.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."