These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#421 - 2014-10-09 23:54:32 UTC
Regarding industrials, though, I'd like to see some math. How much space can one cover in the five minutes it takes for the JB fatigue to wear off, compared to an interceptor?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Neesa Corrinne
Nyx Legion..
Breakpoint.
#422 - 2014-10-09 23:57:27 UTC
Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.

10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains.
Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#423 - 2014-10-10 00:06:02 UTC
wow this whole hauling jumpbridge issue might make for some funny killmails. i mean 200 haulers meet bombers on JB LMFAO -200 tengus.
Iudicium Vastus
Doomheim
#424 - 2014-10-10 00:06:51 UTC
Stabbed-align-fit T1 industrial being used as the new shuttle.

Please CCP, don't do the fatigue reduction on T1 haulers/industrials!!!
If anything, possibly the T2 (Hell, Deep Space Transport has the title Deep Space right in its name) but NOT cheap minutes long training T1 industrials.

[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#425 - 2014-10-10 00:08:13 UTC
And in the words of the one and only Drunkenone

" DrunkenOne SM3LL: This isn't a fps and it's designed to conquer and reflect RL wants and desires. Hobo's don't need a home. Just a shopping cart and a bag for their cans"

D1 for CSM
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#426 - 2014-10-10 00:11:31 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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.



Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists.
Tyr Dolorem
State War Academy
Caldari State
#427 - 2014-10-10 00:13:31 UTC
BLOPS is still dead Sad
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2014-10-10 00:13:35 UTC
Neesa Corrinne wrote:
Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.

10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains.


We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x).

At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with.

At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus.

Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue.
TheGreatConstructo
Electrocuted Wanderers
#429 - 2014-10-10 00:16:10 UTC
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Neesa Corrinne wrote:
Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.

10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains.


We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x).

At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with.

At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus.

Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue.


Wrong. With lower range you have to take geography into account a lot more and there are areas you wouldn't be able to jump to/from, changing where you would use jump freighters (or if you would use a gate or not). Thus range is extremely important to the performance of a jump freighter.
Nordalis Rmith
Thorny Holdings
#430 - 2014-10-10 00:16:25 UTC
This is my first post on the forums, you rock. Thanks for this. I'm a noob, you have won my subscription for the next year at least.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2014-10-10 00:18:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nazri al Mahdi
TheGreatConstructo wrote:
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:
Neesa Corrinne wrote:
Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.

10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains.


We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x).

At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with.

At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus.

Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue.


Wrong. With lower range you have to take geography into account a lot more and there are areas you wouldn't be able to jump to/from, changing where you would use jump freighters (or if you would use a gate or not). Thus range is extremely important to the performance of a jump freighter.


I am basing it on the Jita : Outer Passage run, which is fairly extreme.

You are correct that JF performance is reduced 100% for areas it can't reasonably be expected to reach at shorter ranges. The fact that JF performance is nerfed by an ENORMOUS 75% merely from fatigue without any range nerf means that CCP could reasonably exempt JF from the range nerf and still get what they want.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#432 - 2014-10-10 00:21:08 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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.



Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists.
The only thing he underestimated were the amount of null bear tears. That is the only reason the changes aren't being implemented right now.
Neckbeard Nolyfe
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#433 - 2014-10-10 00:23:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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!


Considering we are the customers and pay for your salary with playing the game we like, you sure as hell better be listening to our concerns and pay attention to what we say.

~lvl 60 paladin~
cherry popping
#434 - 2014-10-10 00:24:16 UTC
well i'm still diapointed about teh jf nerf but i'll be able to keep playing now(so i guess it's a good one)

just 1 thing i been wodnering about and keep in mindhis might be just since i'm a jf pilot hehe

if you want to make deep space harder why not increase the range?

i mean right now with the 10 ly i have to cross 4 regions that will have to be blue ..deals will be made/kept

the less regions a jf needs to cross the less need for cooperation

that is exactly what small groups would need to be able to have a fighting chance

the chance to not be forced to be part of the larger groups

just an idea
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#435 - 2014-10-10 00:24:24 UTC
Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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!


Considering we are the customers and pay for your salary with playing the game we like, you sure as hell better be listening to our concerns and pay attention to what we say.

Entitled much ^
Brittney Calm
Escape from Darkness
#436 - 2014-10-10 00:24:41 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.


This would have to be only against supers and capitals, as I can see HIC's being used to cause havic and could be worse then the asshattery with light interdictors and bubbling of stations and being able to re-dock immediately.

The part of this I dont see working, is if you have 20 supers on a gate with neuts, that hic wont be able to have his modules active for much of anything, and then there goes his tank and his point. Also who gets gate guns agro, does the hic get the agro because he agressed a super? if this is the case and you want gate to gate combat, then give the supers back their drones, or allow them to fit aka rapid light launchers or something to mix it up a little.

Also CCP greyscale one thought came up about supers and gates, I think the main problem people see is that you are going to have 200 man super fleets going gate to gate for lols. You should make the gate guns hit harder on capitals who choose to agro in lowsec, aka damage fit the class, also if the capital agro's on the gate, his other capital buddies should not be able to remote rep as he is flagged a criminal.

-BC
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#437 - 2014-10-10 00:26:36 UTC
When the goons are still crying but the rest of the known universe is happy with the changes, CCP must be doing something right.

Mr Epeen Cool
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#438 - 2014-10-10 00:27:58 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
When the goons are still crying but the rest of the known universe is happy with the changes, CCP must be doing something right.

Mr Epeen Cool

But goons aren't crying, CCP let them keep their jump bridge network.
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2014-10-10 00:30:19 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
Lallante wrote:
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?


Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire

Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null.



Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in.

So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area.


The whole Grr Goons is quite pointless in your response, as I was not calling for a nerf of highsec production. I'm merely pointing out that the production economy will always pick the path that is safer and therefore, more competitive and profitable over the less safer and risk mitigating option. It's an axiom. Increasing the risks of logistics and production in null without adjusting for the loss of competitiveness and profitability is never going to facilitate a highly localized and independent null production economy.
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#440 - 2014-10-10 00:30:54 UTC
cherry popping wrote:
well i'm still diapointed about teh jf nerf but i'll be able to keep playing now(so i guess it's a good one)

just 1 thing i been wodnering about and keep in mindhis might be just since i'm a jf pilot hehe

if you want to make deep space harder why not increase the range?

i mean right now with the 10 ly i have to cross 4 regions that will have to be blue ..deals will be made/kept

the less regions a jf needs to cross the less need for cooperation

that is exactly what small groups would need to be able to have a fighting chance

the chance to not be forced to be part of the larger groups

just an idea



This is completely, totally true.