These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#741 - 2014-10-10 13:46:28 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:

hard: as we are the best at eve online and the finest posters in eve (or anywhere), you must be at the absolute top of your game to tangle with us for even a short time without being massively embarassed

we're basically the endboss of posting


Translation, you cry harder and longer than anyone in gaming history.

Carebears +1


Arguing with a goon is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory
Hicksimus
Torgue
#742 - 2014-10-10 13:49:34 UTC
Tune in next week when CCP completely folds to the will of nullsec as the summer slump continues.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.

Black Viper1
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#743 - 2014-10-10 14:00:16 UTC
CCP,

Although the now improved changes to JFs help this still is a bad move for EVE, most importantly because;


1. EVE is supposed to be a sandbox.

So since EVE is supposed to be a great sandbox the recent changes and your responses to players comments, EX "If battle Rorquals become a thing they will be nerfed". That defeats the entire purpose of a sandbox type of environment, you are saying if you don't play in the sandbox in a manner that I would play in the sandbox and; since I have the power to change things I will, so you are forced to play the way that I want to play. That's the entire point of a sandbox environment! If someone wants to spend time training the fly a ship, and then use it in a role it is not intended then they are free to do that, that's why a certain type of people enjoy a sandbox environment. That is also one of the things that makes EVE great the freedom to enjoy the MASSIVELY complex environment that has been created here. If you continue to punish people for doing things that YOU don't think should be done then they will leave and find a different way to spend their time. Some people want to fly battle badgers, battle rorquals, do their manufacturing in high sec and sell the product in Jita, as long as they are paying there subscriptions and happy to do those things then what is the problem?! You have said on multiple issues lately, (battle rors, industry distribution, etc) that is they don't change you will nerf the activity to force them to do something else. That will destroy one of the great aspects of this game and drive people away from it.


2. Null stagnation is a problem and these changes make it worse.

These changes make holding space MUCH easier and taking space MUCH harder. Since supers take MUCH longer to move for an offensive attack the defenders will be able to move more supers in much easier due to the fact that they are closer and it will be easier to defend space due to a lack of aggressive force projection to counter the defensive super drop. There is currently no counter to a super capital blob, except a BIGGER super capital blob, (that may be part of your grand master plan and if so you need to unveil this new super capital blob counter mechanic before you turn supers into 5LY moveable stations with bigs, and triage modules). The leaders of the major NULL sec entities drafted a letter together about fixing NULL stagnation with 3 ideas that instead of punishing current NULL sec dwellers; makes it easier for new groups to enter null sec space and harder for the current entities to hold it, you appear to have gone the other way with this new patch.


3. Fixing null industry is a MUST but with these changes if you make null sec independent you will kill high sec.

If null sec industry is fixed, (which it should be) and you continue to nerf JF down to 5 LYs as you stated in this thread you want to, people won't risk taking there products out to high sec to sell them when there is now a thriving industry and the market for raw materials that goes with that. People aren't going to risk there caps warping to a gate with billions in the hold to jump into high sec since they can't jump straight into high sec due to the distance between systems. They just sell them in null, prices for moon materials, morphite, and other materials which can only be found in null will skyrocket, advanced high sec manufacturing will disappear, and most pilots will only be able to afford to fly T1 and faction ships. Unless you make ALL materials available in ALL regions and security status space, separating the two will cause industry to evaporate. High sec needs null sec just as much as null sec needs high sec, if you make moving items between the two far to difficult then pilots will stop doing it.


4. These changes will make travel time MUCH greater and cause less content to be available

By applying jump fatigue, (especially to jump bridges which are suppose to be a advantage / reward of holding space) you are causing travel in general; not just to supers much more difficult and time consuming. Flying around space is something that all EVE players have to do, but not something that should be a major focus. People who want to PVP don't want to spend 55 minutes getting to a fight and still end up with a big jump fatigue timer, to only fight for 10 minutes and then turn around and go home, (unless you lose, then the trip home is much quicker). Logistics, traveling, and setup are all part of this game but if that becomes the major focus of everyones EVE experience then they will look elsewhere to find there entertainment.


By adding the jump fatigue timer instead of a static 4-5 minute cool down to ships that have a jump drive, and setting unnecessary limitations on pod expressing yourself; you are forcing people to spend less time enjoying the content that can be had in EVE and more time waiting for a cool down or taking 7 jumps around your own space instead of the JB that they installed in their home system.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#744 - 2014-10-10 14:01:15 UTC
Very nice. Thank you.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#745 - 2014-10-10 14:03:46 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:

hard: as we are the best at eve online and the finest posters in eve (or anywhere), you must be at the absolute top of your game to tangle with us for even a short time without being massively embarassed

we're basically the endboss of posting


Translation, you cry harder and longer than anyone in gaming history.

Carebears +1

see look at our competition

we are basically lebron playing one on one with the least fit kid at fatcamp
Kiwinoob
Perkone
Caldari State
#746 - 2014-10-10 14:17:40 UTC
Black Viper1 wrote:
CCP,

Although the now improved changes to JFs help this still is a bad move for EVE, most importantly because;


1. EVE is supposed to be a sandbox.

So since EVE is supposed to be a great sandbox the recent changes and your responses to players comments, EX "If battle Rorquals become a thing they will be nerfed". That defeats the entire purpose of a sandbox type of environment, you are saying if you don't play in the sandbox in a manner that I would play in the sandbox and; since I have the power to change things I will, so you are forced to play the way that I want to play. That's the entire point of a sandbox environment! If someone wants to spend time training the fly a ship, and then use it in a role it is not intended then they are free to do that, that's why a certain type of people enjoy a sandbox environment. That is also one of the things that makes EVE great the freedom to enjoy the MASSIVELY complex environment that has been created here. If you continue to punish people for doing things that YOU don't think should be done then they will leave and find a different way to spend their time. Some people want to fly battle badgers, battle rorquals, do their manufacturing in high sec and sell the product in Jita, as long as they are paying there subscriptions and happy to do those things then what is the problem?! You have said on multiple issues lately, (battle rors, industry distribution, etc) that is they don't change you will nerf the activity to force them to do something else. That will destroy one of the great aspects of this game and drive people away from it.


1. The sand box still has to get it's sand from somewhere. There has to be some rules - such as the stats of ships and modules. It's great that people think up new ways to use things but often the extreme examples such as the battle rorqual mean that something need to be fixed. Battleships are for battle and rorquals are for rorquing. If training industry is the best way to pvp greatness then something has gone horribly wrong.




Devs are nothing more than machines that turn coffee into code. The quality of the code is inversly proportional to the quality of the coffee.

Kiwinoob
Perkone
Caldari State
#747 - 2014-10-10 14:23:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiwinoob
Black Viper1 wrote:
CCP,

2. Null stagnation is a problem and these changes make it worse.

These changes make holding space MUCH easier and taking space MUCH harder. Since supers take MUCH longer to move for an offensive attack the defenders will be able to move more supers in much easier due to the fact that they are closer and it will be easier to defend space due to a lack of aggressive force projection to counter the defensive super drop. There is currently no counter to a super capital blob, except a BIGGER super capital blob, (that may be part of your grand master plan and if so you need to unveil this new super capital blob counter mechanic before you turn supers into 5LY moveable stations with bigs, and triage modules). The leaders of the major NULL sec entities drafted a letter together about fixing NULL stagnation with 3 ideas that instead of punishing current NULL sec dwellers; makes it easier for new groups to enter null sec space and harder for the current entities to hold it, you appear to have gone the other way with this new patch.


3. Fixing null industry is a MUST but with these changes if you make null sec independent you will kill high sec.

If null sec industry is fixed, (which it should be) and you continue to nerf JF down to 5 LYs as you stated in this thread you want to, people won't risk taking there products out to high sec to sell them when there is now a thriving industry and the market for raw materials that goes with that. People aren't going to risk there caps warping to a gate with billions in the hold to jump into high sec since they can't jump straight into high sec due to the distance between systems. They just sell them in null, prices for moon materials, morphite, and other materials which can only be found in null will skyrocket, advanced high sec manufacturing will disappear, and most pilots will only be able to afford to fly T1 and faction ships. Unless you make ALL materials available in ALL regions and security status space, separating the two will cause industry to evaporate. High sec needs null sec just as much as null sec needs high sec, if you make moving items between the two far to difficult then pilots will stop doing it.


4. These changes will make travel time MUCH greater and cause less content to be available

By applying jump fatigue, (especially to jump bridges which are suppose to be a advantage / reward of holding space) you are causing travel in general; not just to supers much more difficult and time consuming. Flying around space is something that all EVE players have to do, but not something that should be a major focus. People who want to PVP don't want to spend 55 minutes getting to a fight and still end up with a big jump fatigue timer, to only fight for 10 minutes and then turn around and go home, (unless you lose, then the trip home is much quicker). Logistics, traveling, and setup are all part of this game but if that becomes the major focus of everyones EVE experience then they will look elsewhere to find there entertainment.


By adding the jump fatigue timer instead of a static 4-5 minute cool down to ships that have a jump drive, and setting unnecessary limitations on pod expressing yourself; you are forcing people to spend less time enjoying the content that can be had in EVE and more time waiting for a cool down or taking 7 jumps around your own space instead of the JB that they installed in their home system.



2. There is a very big difference between holding space and holding vast amounts of space. Yes it makes holding a small amount of space easier but it makes holding large amounts of space without sufficient manpower harder.


3. People don't seem to understand how markets work. It doesn't matter what CCP does - people in hi-sec demand goods from null and the price will continue to rise until it's worth while for people to make the trip. The only difference is that T2 items will cost more but I haven't heard a single hi-sec person complaining about that. We're not that fussed.

4. You cant nerf travel without nerfing travel. There is no way to make it harder to move long distances quickly while also making it easy for people to move long distances quickly. In fact - this is one of the criticisms of the haulage ships getting a reduction in fatigue. It's an relatively easy avenue for abuse of the new mechanic.

Devs are nothing more than machines that turn coffee into code. The quality of the code is inversly proportional to the quality of the coffee.

Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#748 - 2014-10-10 14:23:48 UTC
Elsa Hayes wrote:
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:

hard: as we are the best at eve online and the finest posters in eve (or anywhere), you must be at the absolute top of your game to tangle with us for even a short time without being massively embarassed

we're basically the endboss of posting


Translation, you cry harder and longer than anyone in gaming history.

Carebears +1


Arguing with a goon is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory


Never mud-wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#749 - 2014-10-10 14:27:12 UTC
Kiwinoob wrote:

4. You cant nerf travel without nerfing travel. There is no way to make it harder to move long distances quickly while also making it easy for people to move long distances quickly. In fact - this is one of the criticisms of the haulage ships getting a reduction in fatigue. It's an relatively easy avenue for abuse of the new mechanic.


+1

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#750 - 2014-10-10 14:35:29 UTC
Kalissis wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kalissis wrote:

You are ignoring so many facts in your calculation. T1 industies can be learned in no time while interceptors can take up to 23d on a fresh char. Smartbombing incoming Interceptors is very well possible, look at how rens pirates perfected smart bombing back then, a focused group will kill every interceptor crossing. Well timed bombing runs will kill your interceptors too. Insta locking is possible in some cases (wrong inti fit/****** skills). So there is a lot of risk involed, and I bet ppl find even more ways. Fact is you can keep ppl away from any risk using Industials and JB/Titans while going gate to gate involes risk, more attention from the player and a way bigger footprint (even on the ingame MAP).


You're ignoring that bubbles stop T1 industrials cold, while being literally ignored by an interceptor.

Constructing a complicated vignette to try and prove an edge case is a pretty sure sign that you're out of ideas, and are only arguing because someone you don't like disagrees with you.



I called you out on at least 4 risks for interceptors beeing used and you are ignoring 2 of them. Also no how are you going to bubble Titan to Titan jumping, tell me?

FACT1: T1 industies can be learned in no time while interceptors can take up to 23d on a fresh char.
FACT2: Smartbombing incoming Interceptors is very well possible, look at how rens pirates perfected smart bombing back then, a focused group will kill every interceptor crossing. -> Need warp offs, more time involed!
FACT3: Well timed bombing runs will kill your interceptors too.
FACT4: Wrong inti Fit -> caught
FACT5: Bad skills -> caught
FACT6: Pilot error -> caught
FACT7: Bigger footprint -> intel!

Now you dont need to use JBs but yes it will be faster not only on fleet ops but if you want to go in your NULL imperium from A->B. And I'm fully aware that you need to take 1 jump over to the next system (in best case) to get to the next JB, still no intercepter can make 12-40jumps while you only take 2 JB and 1 system gate.


1) T1 Indies will be killed by any gate camp in between any known jump bridge connection.
2) Smartbombing may get some, but they sure as hell aren't killing every interceptor. And smartbombing will also be a thing against indies at jump bridge connections
3) Well timed bombing runs will be much more effective at known jump bridge connectins than trying to catch small sig ceptors

I don't care for the change to industrials, but stop making it seem like T1 or T2 industrials are somehow invulnerable when using jump bridges. it just sounds dumb knowing how routes do get camped
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#751 - 2014-10-10 14:38:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale 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?


- Mining ships we'd rather have moving through space, this is *just* intended to help with logistics
- Yes, but that logistics is already in too fragile a place to be able to reliably survive that disruption
- See above




I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm glad that the JF isn't being nerfed as badly as originally planned.

However, using your own words why would you guys nerf the JF so badly if null industry is "already in too fragile of a place"?

We all know Mexallon has been a major issue to contend with in null-sec, and that if we're building in null Mex has to be imported because its rather scarce. There is a lot of movement of resources and ships/modules/ammo into null, and then there's moon goo export. And moving POS fuel to keep the jump bridges and moon mining operations running.

It's not like we're going to tell anyone, "Hey, I'm moving moon goo and fuel through three null-sec regions", because no one talks about what gets moved, or when it gets moved, or who moves, or who the cyno pilots are.

Again, you guys need to play this game a little bit more than just looking down from on high.

And I'm glad you guys listened. After the User Inventory fiasco where we told you it wasn't ready (honestly, it wasn't) and it was pushed regardless then failed miserably until it was fixed almost a year later ...... I wasn't sure anyone really took into consideration what the players were thinking.



But seriously .... you guys NEED to play, with real players, and not just develop this game.
Black Viper1
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#752 - 2014-10-10 14:39:42 UTC
Kiwinoob wrote:
Black Viper1 wrote:
CCP,

Although the now improved changes to JFs help this still is a bad move for EVE, most importantly because;


1. EVE is supposed to be a sandbox.

So since EVE is supposed to be a great sandbox the recent changes and your responses to players comments, EX "If battle Rorquals become a thing they will be nerfed". That defeats the entire purpose of a sandbox type of environment, you are saying if you don't play in the sandbox in a manner that I would play in the sandbox and; since I have the power to change things I will, so you are forced to play the way that I want to play. That's the entire point of a sandbox environment! If someone wants to spend time training the fly a ship, and then use it in a role it is not intended then they are free to do that, that's why a certain type of people enjoy a sandbox environment. That is also one of the things that makes EVE great the freedom to enjoy the MASSIVELY complex environment that has been created here. If you continue to punish people for doing things that YOU don't think should be done then they will leave and find a different way to spend their time. Some people want to fly battle badgers, battle rorquals, do their manufacturing in high sec and sell the product in Jita, as long as they are paying there subscriptions and happy to do those things then what is the problem?! You have said on multiple issues lately, (battle rors, industry distribution, etc) that is they don't change you will nerf the activity to force them to do something else. That will destroy one of the great aspects of this game and drive people away from it.


1. The sand box still has to get it's sand from somewhere. There has to be some rules - such as the stats of ships and modules. It's great that people think up new ways to use things but often the extreme examples such as the battle rorqual mean that something need to be fixed. Battleships are for battle and rorquals are for rorquing. If training industry is the best way to pvp greatness then something has gone horribly wrong.






Yes the sand box does have to get its sand from somewhere that is very true, the problem is that the DEVs are saying that they don't agree with a play-style and will nerf it if people do it. It's not a nerf to a ship type it's a nerf to a play style, people would already be going outside the intended role of the rorqual by using it in this manner (and could very easily lose an expensive cap because of it) but since they paid to train the skills, and paid for the ship why can't they use it the way that they want to. If someone wants to use a ship in a certain way then that's their call, and also the entire point of a sandbox environment, when you punish people for stepping outside of the norm in combat style, or play style, then you have destroyed the concept of a sandbox. Rorquals are in need of an overhaul I agree with that; especially since the pos module that compresses ore came out this summer, but that type of thinking by the DEVs will lead to ships and play styles being rigidly locked into the roles that they approve of and not what the paying subscribers want to do in game. Balance changes and nerfs of over powered modules / ship types are one thing, but if someone wants to take a non combat ship into combat, or any other type of behavior that others may think is stupid, wasteful, etc. then let them. A sandbox is supposed to reward creativity and have room for it; further nerfing a ship type for those types of reasons only frustrate players that are trying to find new ways to enjoy the game and punishes the players that are using that ship in the "DEV approved" style.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#753 - 2014-10-10 14:41:47 UTC
Kalissis wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kalissis wrote:
[quote=Querns]

The only complicated thing here is that you are complete ignorant of FACTS. I'm not biased or have any hatred towards you or your group, your playstyle is not affecting me at all. But facts are facts and you are not even trying to argument them because you dont have any, because there are none against.

Your facts are equally applicable to T1 industrials. Interceptors take 10d to train (racial frigate: 3d, evasive maneuvering 5: 7d) -- low training time, check. Smartbombing kills T1 industrials, check. Well timed bombing runs kill T1 industrials, check. Wrong T1 industrial fit = caught, check. Bad skills -> caught? T1 industrial, checkaroonie. Pilot error -> caught? You better believe T1 industrials get a check here. Bigger footprint? Logging on 16 titan pilots to bridge industrials around ISN'T a big footprint? Contact lists exist. T1 industrial footprint? Check.

You can't selectively apply your "facts" to interceptors and not allow them to touch T1 industrials too.


All the risks do not apply if you are using titans, and even when you are using JBs they dont! Because a fleet cant camp JB as effective as gates (GUNS ON POSES!)!!! So now argument again that it applies, it does not!


Can't even believe someone gave you likes for this comment. At least 2 more idiots out there.

A Fleet can't camp a JB as effectively as gates. Yeah, which is why they split jump bridge connections to separate systems so whatever goes through a JB has to go through a gate to get to the next one. Either understand or be quiet because now you just sound silly. And for the record, I don't think opening up the potential for indies should be a thing. But man, please stop your horribad logic trip.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#754 - 2014-10-10 14:42:00 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Never mud-wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.


I'm going to put that on my Trapper Keeper.
Hakuuna Matata
Data Core Inc.
#755 - 2014-10-10 14:43:00 UTC
Vlade Randal wrote:
+1 Great idea changing jump freighter jump range to 10ly

The Rorqual is used a lot in nullsec transport, for dropping control towers, fueling pos, and as an alternative logistical transport ship for those lacking the skills or isk for a jump freighter. It plays a vital role in current nullsec logistics at present. Therefore, I suggest that the rorqual should also have the 10ly range to enable it to continue its vital role in 0.0.

The only other suggestion I would make, is that 5ly is marginally short for reaching key logistics points that have stations to dock in. Several of the jump routes i have looked at are 5.1ly to 5.8ly. Therefore I recommend increasing maximum jump range of combat vessels to 6ly. This would still achieve the goal of reducing force projection, while keeping it reasonably painless to move combat ships over time when needed.


+1
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#756 - 2014-10-10 14:45:34 UTC
JimmieTwoTimes wrote:
So what is going to be the standard convoluted CCP explanation as to why JF's can go further distances with less fatigue than all the other capitals?

Or are you just giving up on even trying to make any sense at all these days?


You a roleplayer? You want some lore written? Will that make your immersion easier?
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#757 - 2014-10-10 14:45:39 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:



Can't even believe someone gave you likes for this comment. At least 2 more idiots out there.




Dont be surprised about it - you show a very clear disrespect of other peoples opinion. Name calling just dumped you down into kindergarden again. Too bad there isnt a dislike button yet

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Odelll
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#758 - 2014-10-10 14:48:33 UTC
Anyone else concerned by the new black ops concessions?

Here is what I fear;


  1. Fleets of T3 refitting to covert ops to use the 8AU range of BOP
  2. Cloaky Haulers being used to transport logistics
  3. bridge all the way to friendly/NPC station and refit back into combat


-90% reduction on the hauler fatigue
-50% on the t3

90% of all fleets these days are T3+Logi

The Black ops are more accessible than titans, this looks to make long distance travel of T3 fleets much easier. Most of the supporting fleets these days are not capital but sub-capital t3 to bluster defensive fleets.

Onto the 90% reduction of fatigue for haulers, as most doctrine ships can fit inside a hauler with fittings and ammo I fail to see why jumpbridges just don't have a 10% fatigue instead.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#759 - 2014-10-10 14:52:44 UTC
would one of the many idiots who think an industrial through jump bridges will ever be faster than a taxi interceptor post a video proving it

i look forward to the utter lack of videos as you discover an interceptor will always be faster in any reasonable situation
Josef Djugashvilis
#760 - 2014-10-10 14:56:24 UTC
The null-bears won this fight.

All credit to them for doing so.

I just hope CCP have learned their lesson and do not try to introduce any more changes with out prior clearance - permission from the null-sec folk.

This is not a signature.