These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cozmo I
State War Academy
Caldari State
#201 - 2014-10-09 20:01:09 UTC
_exactly_ what I was hoping for.

tyvm.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2014-10-09 20:01:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
a significant percentage of their basic needs on-site without relying on JF chains


AKA: rebalancing nullsec ore anomalies
Yuri Thorpe
Volatile Restability
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#203 - 2014-10-09 20:01:47 UTC
ADarwinAward Winner wrote:
9 LY lets jump freighters cover most of the regional gaps. Don't go all the way to 10.

Give me one good reason of why not, can you not fight a hotdrop JF fleet?
Svetlana Kerensky
Speck in the Void
#204 - 2014-10-09 20:01:57 UTC
looks lihe the denizens of a very warm place suddenly went ice skating :)
Yuri Thorpe
Volatile Restability
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#205 - 2014-10-09 20:03:00 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
I'm reiterating this again in hopes that Greyscale reads it:

Please- remove drone bonus on Rorqs, if that's a concern for you, and give them the 10ly jump range.

We are all still waiting for a change for Rorqs, but that could be another several updates out. In the mean time, Rorqs are one of the most commonly used ships for logistics, and the 5ly nerf to them is just as bad as it is to JFs. It's not a matter of projecting our power, it's a matter of not committing suicide by trying to do day-to-day logistics.

Not really, most of them sit in a POS their whole life, some people use it over a JF, but no enough to give them 10 and make them lose the drones.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#206 - 2014-10-09 20:03:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

This doesn't make any sense. After all this you are leaving JFs almost completely unchanged.. I did agree that 5LY was perhaps a little to low, but what is the reason for doubling this and leaving them almost completely unchanged?

It really makes no sense given your original statement, and is a massive backward step. Something like 6 to 8 light years max would have been fine, and a 80% fatigue reduction to balance that out.

Also black ops getting bumped to 8...? Do you not realise how lame black ops dropping is already, and you want to make this worse. 5L years is honestly more than enough. Why don't you ask the community then you'd get proper feedback, as no one has been suggesting 8LY is needed for black ops.

Also, seems with the fatigue reduction to jump bridge networks when using haulers will mean that actually not much has changed much at all on the logistics side. That is very disappointing as they were going to be interesting changes.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#207 - 2014-10-09 20:03:53 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:

Did you like my joke?

no

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#208 - 2014-10-09 20:04:36 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it.

And you call it a sandbox?


Yes. I don't understand how that relates to the text you quoted?

Lallante wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
* 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.

- Yes, but that logistics is already in too fragile a place to be able to reliably survive that disruption


Mr Greyscale, I'd love to understand why you think that is a bad thing. Obviously with 5LY range JFs, the current status quo of logistics is untenable (I agree, it simply wouldnt survive), but I think this is a good thing. Is it really good game design that a small handful players in a 3000+ man alliance can easily fuel hundreds of POSs and provide replacement ships for all loses right to the frontline without any meaningful risk?

Alliances held space before JFs existed. And in fact, the logistical needs were vastly greater in those days (hello 60 moon outpost systems). It was possible, and people did it. Why is this unnerf needed, what are you afraid will happen if you dont do it?

Wouldnt it be better if logistics was a meaningful consideration both for holding space and for taking it?

I'd like to repeat my earlier suggestion. Fine, let JFs have 10LY but remove the 90% Fatigue reduction from them - this forces players to make meaninful strategic decisions - small 5LY hops with freighters/transports, or occasional 10ly hops with a JF.

As it is, the net result of your proposed changes is no-one will use anything but JFs for null logistics, JFs wont be interdicted mid journey because they will continue the current status quo of going from POS to POS and never gates, and business will continue very much as usual.


We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.

Ripard Teg wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
  • 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.
Just to be clear: the combination of these two statements seem to say that the JF range change is likely to be a temporary compromise fix while you put phases 2 and 3 of your plan into effect. And that once more of the overall plan is in place, the range of JFs is then likely to be reduced.

Is that more or less accurate with the information you have today?


That's broadly in alignment with our current position, yes. We would like to reach a point where JF power can be significantly curtailed without causing massive problems, at which point we would be minded to do so.

Skia Aumer wrote:
CCP Greyscale, could you explain, why do you allow capitals to go through the gates?
What is the reasoning behind it?
And maybe it would be enough to let them through regional gates only?


Because we don't want to lock them in systems while their cooldown is ticking down; because not doing so plays havoc with capital accessibility of some areas of space; and because we'd much rather have capitals stuck in gate bubbles than docked up and unused.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#209 - 2014-10-09 20:05:42 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
I'm reiterating this again in hopes that Greyscale reads it:

Please- remove drone bonus on Rorqs, if that's a concern for you, and give them the 10ly jump range.

We are all still waiting for a change for Rorqs, but that could be another several updates out. In the mean time, Rorqs are one of the most commonly used ships for logistics, and the 5ly nerf to them is just as bad as it is to JFs. It's not a matter of projecting our power, it's a matter of not committing suicide by trying to do day-to-day logistics.


I'd be happy if they took away the drone bonus and gave the rorq 9ly or 8ly.


I'd be really happy if they embraced the Rorqs tower logistics role and gave some sort of bonus for carrying fuel blocks.


The rorqual needs a total overhaul, not a patch job.

Yaay!!!!
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2014-10-09 20:05:47 UTC
Battle Rorquals... I didn't even know such a thing existed...
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#211 - 2014-10-09 20:06:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone [...] changes we are making to the previously-announced plan:
  • 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. Note that, because ranges multiply together for fatigue purposes, one 10LY jump is *substantially* less fatiguing (multiply by 11) than two 5LY jumps (multiply by 36). Rorquals will stay at 5LY/90%


These changes should all be hitting Singularity in the next few days; please give us feedback when they land!

Thanks,
-Greyscale


[edit 19:21 added bullet point 5 to first list]


You don't have to do this. Just increase the mineral yield out of reprocessing in null. JF range at 5 ly makes the universe alot more bigger and this IS awsome. I too at the begining was baffled when I read that you plan to make JFs not be able to jump more than 5 ly but as I think of it it is not bad, but very very good thing.

Regards.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2014-10-09 20:07:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Well... where do you want nullsec industry to be?

Somewhere where we feel comfortable nerfing JFs further :P We're not in a position to discuss details right now, but people building a significant percentage of their basic needs on-site without relying on JF chains is likely to figure in the final intention.

Does this mean actually building a significant percentage or capable of building a significant percentage based on locally sourced goods or raw materials reasonably imported from Empire?

Otherwise, folks will just keep importing finished goods and no nerf ever comes.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Eryn Velasquez
#213 - 2014-10-09 20:07:53 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
  • 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.
Just to be clear: the combination of these two statements seem to say that the JF range change is likely to be a temporary compromise fix while you put phases 2 and 3 of your plan into effect. And that once more of the overall plan is in place, the range of JFs is then likely to be reduced.

Is that more or less accurate with the information you have today?


If this is a temporary fix, please split the cargobay of the JFs. 50.000m³ free use, the rest should not be able to take packaged ships.
So fast mass deployment of cruisers/frigs via JF is not possible.

_“A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau _
DexterShark
Trask Industries
#214 - 2014-10-09 20:08:16 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:

I'd be really happy if they embraced the Rorqs tower logistics role and gave some sort of bonus for carrying fuel blocks.



POS-related bays could be very useful. A Moon Goo specialised bay, a Fuel Block specialised bay, a POS-module category bay, etc

So that total hauling m3 matches or exceeds JFs, but only in those specific areas. Nerf the general cargo bay if you want, for balance.
Yuri Thorpe
Volatile Restability
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#215 - 2014-10-09 20:08:19 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Battle Rorquals... I didn't even know such a thing existed...

They are great fun, you can get around 900 DPS out of it.
Fill the highs with Neuts
Mids with tonk and cap booster along with a duel web + scram or disrupt
Lows DCU and damage
IDGAF for rigs
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#216 - 2014-10-09 20:08:36 UTC
Yuri Thorpe wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
I'm reiterating this again in hopes that Greyscale reads it:

Please- remove drone bonus on Rorqs, if that's a concern for you, and give them the 10ly jump range.

We are all still waiting for a change for Rorqs, but that could be another several updates out. In the mean time, Rorqs are one of the most commonly used ships for logistics, and the 5ly nerf to them is just as bad as it is to JFs. It's not a matter of projecting our power, it's a matter of not committing suicide by trying to do day-to-day logistics.

Not really, most of them sit in a POS their whole life, some people use it over a JF, but no enough to give them 10 and make them lose the drones.


The rorqual is one of the most common logistics vessels used to service starbases. It excels at the role by being able to haul a decent amount, having a fleet hangar and a ship maintenance bay (have you tried scooping starbase modules without a blockade runner to zip around and grab them? It isn't fun!), and by having some rudimentary defense features like highslots (for cloaking and cyno) and the ability to field an okay tank. Drone damage bonuses don't fit this all that well, especially due to the rorqual's tiny drone bay (not to mention it only has three lowslots, limiting its total damage considerably.)

This role may not be what is written on the box, but it's what the ship currently does, and it excels mightily at it. Kneecapping its range just serves to unnecessarily hamper POS logistics, which is an already thankless, soul-rending task.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#217 - 2014-10-09 20:08:37 UTC
I want to raise a question about the Prospect - would it be treated as industrial (90% reduction) or covert (50% reduction) ship in therms of fatigue?
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#218 - 2014-10-09 20:08:38 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.


It does make it pretty easy for vets to get in and out of null, though: have an alt with a Blops, jump in your Viator, have your Blops bridge you out, presumably taking advantage of both the 90% Viator bonus and the 50% Covert Portal bonus (how will those stack, BTW?). Then reverse the process to return.

Poor man's version? Caches of MWD cloaky Epithals in the corp hangar at source and destination stations on the JB network.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#219 - 2014-10-09 20:08:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Overlord Invictus wrote:
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)?


No, I'm saying that our opinion on whether or not this constitutes a complete fix is very thoroughly laid out in the blog, and it's not clear how asking me to explain how this change fixes everything is constructive.


forgive me for not 'feeling' all warm and fuzzy that your overall plan is thoroughly thought out and planned to cover all eventualities when you expressly point out that the changes you make are NOT thoroughly thought out because doing so removes the 'chance' of getting it right. as detailed below:

CCP Greyscale wrote:


If we can predict the consequences of changes we make, players will be able to (some of you are always smarter than us), and changes that can be predicted are changes that can be solved, and solved problems are boring. If we can know what the exact consequences will be for changes we're making, we've already failed.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#220 - 2014-10-09 20:08:55 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
a significant percentage of their basic needs on-site without relying on JF chains


AKA: rebalancing nullsec ore anomalies


Good idea. It's been a while since I messed with nullsec anomalies. I think I remember how to do it...

Medalyn Isis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

This doesn't make any sense. After all this you are leaving JFs almost completely unchanged.. I did agree that 5LY was perhaps a little to low, but what is the reason for doubling this and leaving them almost completely unchanged?

It really makes no sense given your original statement, and is a massive backward step. Something like 6 to 8 light years max would have been fine, and a 80% fatigue reduction to balance that out.

Also black ops getting bumped to 8...? Do you not realise how lame black ops dropping is already, and you want to make this worse. 5L years is honestly more than enough. Why don't you ask the community then you'd get proper feedback, as no one has been suggesting 8LY is needed for black ops.

Also, seems with the fatigue reduction to jump bridge networks when using haulers will mean that actually not much has changed much at all on the logistics side. That is very disappointing as they were going to be interesting changes.


- See the bullet point after the one in your first quote.
- 7.875 -> 8 is not a hugely significant buff, we don't believe. And, uh, we are asking the community - that's what this thread is.
- Yes, we know, and we're sad too.