These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mor Rioghainn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#241 - 2014-10-09 20:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mor Rioghainn
hoping you are tracking subscriber numbers as much as you dont care about people enjoying eve


can you make star citzen beta key purchasable with plex maybe please?


///////////////////////////////////////////////post in advance///////////////////////////////////////////////////
gj on rorqual nerf , great game design ,love it
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#242 - 2014-10-09 20:20:55 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.


I genuinely hope your marketing people explained to you how you can either gain or lose customers if you fiddle with their supers to the point of them being useless versus them having a use outside of massive fleets?



If CCP had a nickle for every threat of players unsubbing over various changes they wouldn't need any players.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#243 - 2014-10-09 20:21:46 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I suspect that people invested in Industry would be much more comfortable with operating from Nullsec if Blockade Runners, or perhaps other ships, through some sort of game mechanic, could dock at any outpost of their choosing, regardless of standings.


That is an open invitation to hobojam every single station in the universe.


Hobojamming is nolonger possible in Phoebe - disrupt probes despawn on docking
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#244 - 2014-10-09 20:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Manfred Sideous wrote:

If CCP had a nickle for every threat of players unsubbing over various changes they wouldn't need any players.


Its the same people every time, too. Just how many times can the same guy unsub his 14 accounts?

Mor Rioghainn wrote:
hoping you are tracking subscriber numbers as much as you dont care about people enjoying eve


can you make star citzen beta key purchasable with plex maybe please?


///////////////////////////////////////////////post in advance///////////////////////////////////////////////////
gj on rorqual nerf , great game design ,love it

still 10 accounts less


Quoting this in case you try to delete it later. Delicious tears.
Solaren
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#245 - 2014-10-09 20:23:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Solaren
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Rorquals will stay at 5LY/90%


Is there a reason that Rorquals don't get the same 10LY range as JFs? Rorquals are used just as much for logistics as JFs, especially because their actual intended use isn't really...useful.


We didn't think it was sensible to let it keep its drone bonus and have a 10LY range, and at the end of the day the bonus won out. The ship needs a large rework anyway, and we'll revisit all this when that happens :)


I think anyone who is sane would willingly trade the drone damage bonus on rorquals for the extended range. If you're going to rework the ship anyways, this is the clear sacrifice to make.

Hell, replace the drone damage bonus on the hull with 20% additional jump range per level.


As a rorq user when I am in null sec, I completely agree with wanting jump range over drone damage bonus. Even if rorqs were made survivable in betls while deployed, I'd still take the jump range over drone damage bonus.

I'd fully support the 20% additional range per level idea as well.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#246 - 2014-10-09 20:23:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Vesan Terakol wrote:
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?


Not designated as a hauler so not getting the industrial bonus; can use covert portal so will get 50% bonus while using covert portal.



What about shuttles? They're designated as haulers. Or leopards?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#247 - 2014-10-09 20:24:30 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I suspect that people invested in Industry would be much more comfortable with operating from Nullsec if Blockade Runners, or perhaps other ships, through some sort of game mechanic, could dock at any outpost of their choosing, regardless of standings.


That is an open invitation to hobojam every single station in the universe.


Except they nerfed hobojamming so it won't work any more!
Anthar Thebess
#248 - 2014-10-09 20:24:48 UTC
Where can we expect increase of base sov bill for each TCU?

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#249 - 2014-10-09 20:24:51 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I suspect that people invested in Industry would be much more comfortable with operating from Nullsec if Blockade Runners, or perhaps other ships, through some sort of game mechanic, could dock at any outpost of their choosing, regardless of standings.


That is an open invitation to hobojam every single station in the universe.


Hobojamming is nolonger possible in Phoebe - disrupt probes despawn on docking


Interesting, so this and the bomber nerf are going to change the warfare quite a bit.

Manfred Sideous wrote:


If CCP had a nickle for every threat of players unsubbing over various changes they wouldn't need any players.


I've not implied or said anything, you are just putting words in my mouth at this point.

Average person on the other hand might not have the attention span to look at their super if it was brought down to "You can defend home once every 11 monhs, just keep it unsubbed".
marVLs
#250 - 2014-10-09 20:25:00 UTC
Fail CCP... You just insure us that nothing will change in EVE... sad that EVE is not Your's anymore but it belongs to crying lazy babies of null...

It could be the biggest and best change in game in last few years, but it end as biggest fail...
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#251 - 2014-10-09 20:26:40 UTC
Pumped!

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2014-10-09 20:27:34 UTC
marVLs wrote:
Fail CCP... You just insure us that nothing will change in EVE... sad that EVE is not Your's anymore but it belongs to crying lazy babies of null...

It could be the biggest and best change in game in last few years, but it end as biggest fail...


Live out in null for awhile then form an opinion.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#253 - 2014-10-09 20:27:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
David Magnus wrote:
These do address some of the bigger concerns, thanks for taking the time to post about these!
Have there been changes to death-clone camping, or did I miss that in a different thread?


Death clone camping is handled by the new medical clone changes that are being implemented right now. The short version is that you'll always be able to intentionally revoke your clone contract somewhere and have it reset to your rookie system.

wait what, where is this


On Nullarbor's computer, currently.

Also, to everyone who was wondering whether or not I listened, I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. Whether or not I agreed with the concerns was an open question, but I hope it was obvious from my posting that I was paying attention!



I seriously hope that you had copious amounts of beer, wine and curry while you read them :-)

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#254 - 2014-10-09 20:29:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.
Lurifax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#255 - 2014-10-09 20:30:04 UTC
since you decided not to give the Rorq 10Ly jumprange, could we perhaps have a mini freighter around the same price ? Many ppl start out with the rorq as a poor mans freighter and for smaller mining operations. Perhaps a rorq with no drone bay and a very small cargo hold, but with a nice big ore bay ?
Vista Roid
Original Sinners
Pandemic Legion
#256 - 2014-10-09 20:31:01 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
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.



add normal hangers to the XL array and its fixed
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#257 - 2014-10-09 20:31:46 UTC
afkalt wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.


or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength
Edisonn Trent
White Noise.
#258 - 2014-10-09 20:32:36 UTC
marVLs wrote:
Fail CCP... You just insure us that nothing will change in EVE... sad that EVE is not Your's anymore but it belongs to crying lazy babies of null...

It could be the biggest and best change in game in last few years, but it end as biggest fail...



Have to agree, at least partly. Now any alliance with large numbers can just train lots of pilots to fly jfs and guarantee that they can move their subcaps with double the range of any cap fleet and with a much lower cooloff time. The previous changes dealt with both big problems in null- capital proliferation and the nigh invulnerability in numbers. Now the second part is gone, cause even though say goons won't be able to move their caps around the map, they can still run their hordes from one side of the map to another whenever they feel like it.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#259 - 2014-10-09 20:33:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.


or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength


Maybe make them immune to only +1 strength disrupters and a +x core strength.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#260 - 2014-10-09 20:34:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- 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.

Is it because the changes would be too destabilising for the supply of certain materials at the moment?

I guess I am just a little disappointed with expectations raised high in the previous thread, and I don't quite see where the sudden watering down is coming from other than the fact it would be destabilising to the economy for certain items which rely on moon materials. So I see you point, although it was always obvious that it would be disturbing to null sec and the supply of materials, and I thought that was the reason for these changes. The market always adjusts, and people adapt to using new items when older ones become more expensive, then moon distribution could be optimised later when the results of these changes have been realised.

So I guess I am just a little confused on the sudden and complete 180 u turn. I think surely the changes could be phased in rather than a complete u turn. Changes such as giving the JF a range of 8 LYs which I think many would regard as reasonable on both sides of the fence would have been better imo.

Also with regards to black ops, I wasn't aware you were still asking for feedback on that. I agree with the fatigue reduction, as black ops fleets need to be able to jump around relatively freely in comparison to capital fleets, and they don't pose the same level of threat as a full fleet of remote repping carriers would do. 50% sounds good to me.

On the other hand, I do think the jump range is too muc. Most people regard black ops dropping as a lame tactic, and reducing the jump range to 5 or 6 light years would mean that people would need to be more strategic with their use and positioning of black ops assets, and would also mean it is easier for opponents to get intel on and counter the black ops drops.