These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#881 - 2014-10-10 18:22:02 UTC
theres a 10min base fatigue present for any distance jump atm
Momma Yeti
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#882 - 2014-10-10 18:31:55 UTC
CCP... I am still unclear how this is going to "help" break up these massive & dug-in super blocks in nullsec. Wont they just redeploy their assets & industries to compensate for this new mechanic before you deploy this new patch?

If the above is true, in the end the only people you are hurting is the whole of your subscription base in an attempt to lay a blow to the big supers?
cecil b d'milf
Perkone
Caldari State
#883 - 2014-10-10 18:35:04 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.


Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues.

Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path


Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in".

Occam's razor pal.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#884 - 2014-10-10 18:35:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
... I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. ...
With that number you may apply for an entry level position in CCL. I other words: Hah! n00b.....Twisted


All kidding aside, thanks for the effort involved. Fantastic work! I personally like these adjustments and the JF's on my playing account thank you and the team involved as well...Big smile

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
afkboss
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#885 - 2014-10-10 18:35:30 UTC
While your tweaking so much can you please give the revelation a damage boost just to bring it closer to moros. I find it hard to believe you would ignore a ship that is the same colour as your beard
cecil b d'milf
Perkone
Caldari State
#886 - 2014-10-10 18:38:27 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

- Battle rorqual
-- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway
-- Reduced/removed drone bonus


just out of curiosity let us suppose the battle rorqual fleet was deployed

how long do you think we'd have to play around with it before it got nerfed :sun:


Depends how funny we found it, I think.


I think we just found the new end boss on the forumsShocked


New end boss that tries to create new end game content and bottles it ?
Drak Fel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#887 - 2014-10-10 18:48:06 UTC
I know, lets get rid of all capitals and ships with jump drives, all T2/T3 ships and T2 modules/rigs and go back to T1 subcaps online. There was nothing wrong with the game then was there?
cecil b d'milf
Perkone
Caldari State
#888 - 2014-10-10 18:48:57 UTC
Drak Fel wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

- Setting up caches of ships and jump cloning to them
-- Difficulty and cost of setting up and maintaining caches of sufficient size and density
-- Limit jump clone usage furtehr
- Ascendancy capitals
-- Risks involved, rarity of key items
-- Reduce bonuses hyperspatial whatsamajigs give to supers
- Battle rorqual
-- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway
-- Reduced/removed drone bonus
- T1 hauler redeployment
-- Risk of moving your whole fleet in T1 haulers, bridging or no
-- Nerf hauler fatigue bonus
- Using JFs to move your fleet
-- Requires everyone to train for and own a JF, requires you to fly round in an unescorted fleet of JFs
-- We're going to nerf JFs evenutally, if we have to tackle this in the meantime we'll think of something
- Blockade-runner/black ops fleet movement
-- Need to have BO stationed everywhere to pull it off
-- Nerf BR bonuses
- Roaming fast-warp carrier gangs
-- It's a gimmick, there's probably a good counter
-- Delete carriers from game (kidding, unfortunately, but we'll think of something)


So basically what you're saying is, don't do anything that can give you an advantage or we will nerf it to the ground. Not much of a sandbox.


So people will not use the above tactics for fear that they may not be able to use the above tactics ? Or ... they will just use them until they can no longer use them ?

Which one of these makes more sense ?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#889 - 2014-10-10 18:52:40 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
... I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. ...
With that number you may apply for an entry level position in CCL. I other words: Hah! n00b.....Twisted
.Big smile


You ain't be trolled till you been ISDtrolled!

In other news, ISD member confirmed to have sense of humor. Fired from ISD 13 seconds later by forum automation.
Drak Fel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#890 - 2014-10-10 18:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Drak Fel
cecil b d'milf wrote:
Drak Fel wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

- Setting up caches of ships and jump cloning to them
-- Difficulty and cost of setting up and maintaining caches of sufficient size and density
-- Limit jump clone usage furtehr
- Ascendancy capitals
-- Risks involved, rarity of key items
-- Reduce bonuses hyperspatial whatsamajigs give to supers
- Battle rorqual
-- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway
-- Reduced/removed drone bonus
- T1 hauler redeployment
-- Risk of moving your whole fleet in T1 haulers, bridging or no
-- Nerf hauler fatigue bonus
- Using JFs to move your fleet
-- Requires everyone to train for and own a JF, requires you to fly round in an unescorted fleet of JFs
-- We're going to nerf JFs evenutally, if we have to tackle this in the meantime we'll think of something
- Blockade-runner/black ops fleet movement
-- Need to have BO stationed everywhere to pull it off
-- Nerf BR bonuses
- Roaming fast-warp carrier gangs
-- It's a gimmick, there's probably a good counter
-- Delete carriers from game (kidding, unfortunately, but we'll think of something)


So basically what you're saying is, don't do anything that can give you an advantage or we will nerf it to the ground. Not much of a sandbox.


So people will not use the above tactics for fear that they may not be able to use the above tactics ? Or ... they will just use them until they can no longer use them ?

Which one of these makes more sense ?


shh, don't give away our plans...

Seriously though, you give us a game that's supposed to be a "sandbox," but threaten to nerf anything we "take advantage of." What kind of sandbox is that.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#891 - 2014-10-10 18:54:37 UTC
Momma Yeti wrote:
CCP... I am still unclear how this is going to "help" break up these massive & dug-in super blocks in nullsec. Wont they just redeploy their assets & industries to compensate for this new mechanic before you deploy this new patch?

If the above is true, in the end the only people you are hurting is the whole of your subscription base in an attempt to lay a blow to the big supers?



We still don't know what else they are going to do to null. But yes, this is exactly what has happened in the past when things have been done with specific intentions in mind. In this thread and the one in the information portal that precedes it you can find links to past dev blogs show as much.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#892 - 2014-10-10 19:02:25 UTC
Battle Rorquals are not a serious proposition. The drone bonus isn't a danger.

Per zkillboard, here are the last 10ish things involving rorquals.

Rorquals killed by:
bombers and other subcaps
carrier and a bunch of blops
dread, couple battelships, other subcaps
pair of proteuses
dread, carrier, blops, arazu, frigate
dread, 2 blops, bomber
phantasm, 2 proteus
Deimos and a shuttle (??)
Two carriers and a domi
Cruiser fleet with other subcaps
2 battleships, ishtar, harb, munnin, unknown

Rorqual kills:
Small auto cannon battery (28 dudes)
Archon (45)
NAPOC (33)
Archon (42)
NAPOC (23)
CHA (Solo kill!)
Jump Bridge (Nearly solo!)
Capsule (Solo!)
Raptor (Solo!)
Sabre (Solo, done by same dude, HOW?!?)
Velator
SBU (Part of 653)
SBU (Part of 560)

Other than the solo kill of the sabre by the rorqual, I have no idea how one of these would be used in even a roaming fleet.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#893 - 2014-10-10 19:05:36 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
... I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. ...
With that number you may apply for an entry level position in CCL. I other words: Hah! n00b.....Twisted


All kidding aside, thanks for the effort involved. Fantastic work! I personally like these adjustments and the JF's on my playing account thank you and the team involved as well...Big smile

Zing!
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#894 - 2014-10-10 19:29:21 UTC
snorkle25 wrote:
A few suggestions I have:

1. Add a jump route planner function to the star map.

2. Change the Fatigue generation from 1+(LY traveled) to just (LY traveled). Increase fatigue degradation to .25/min. Add Jump Fatigue Compensation skill that increases fatigue reduction by .01/min per level so maxed out skill equates to -.3/min fatigue.


DNS would not appreciate your insubordinate softening of the nerf. You have been reported to high command
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#895 - 2014-10-10 19:35:56 UTC
cecil b d'milf wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.


Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues.

Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path


Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in".

Occam's razor pal.


Considering he has done exactly what he should have done in the first place, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what the logical route was. They have multiple tools they can use in order to effect their desired outcome. They didn't need to drop the unopened toolbox from a 10-story building onto the problem, and then step themselves back, giving the impression of caving in. The modifications they have now come out with, all generally sensible, would have been the original outcome if they had bothered to discuss details with the CSM they way they should have. Instead, they brought it directly to the rabble using a worst-case scenario. That is bad judgment. And now that they have half of the people happy they showed moderation by using a logical process of change and review, they now have dopes who think they caved in. I guess you'd prefer a bad outcome as long as it means they didn't cave in on your illogical ideas. Make sense. Thank you for your insight, and good day sir.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#896 - 2014-10-10 19:41:30 UTC
snorkle25 wrote:
A few suggestions I have:

1. Add a jump route planner function to the star map.

2. Change the Fatigue generation from 1+(LY traveled) to just (LY traveled). Increase fatigue degradation to .25/min. Add Jump Fatigue Compensation skill that increases fatigue reduction by .01/min per level so maxed out skill equates to -.3/min fatigue.


The +1 is there to put a lower bound on the formula. Without it, jumps of under 1LY would actually reduce fatigue as it would be multiplied by a decimal value.
Momma Yeti
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#897 - 2014-10-10 19:53:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Momma Yeti wrote:
CCP... I am still unclear how this is going to "help" break up these massive & dug-in super blocks in nullsec. Wont they just redeploy their assets & industries to compensate for this new mechanic before you deploy this new patch?

If the above is true, in the end the only people you are hurting is the whole of your subscription base in an attempt to lay a blow to the big supers?



We still don't know what else they are going to do to null. But yes, this is exactly what has happened in the past when things have been done with specific intentions in mind. In this thread and the one in the information portal that precedes it you can find links to past dev blogs show as much.



It will be curious to see what happens to the below graphs after the patch.

http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

But so far the trend (Past Year) hasn't been a positive one...
cecil b d'milf
Perkone
Caldari State
#898 - 2014-10-10 20:00:42 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
cecil b d'milf wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.


Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues.

Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path


Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in".

Occam's razor pal.


Considering he has done exactly what he should have done in the first place, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what the logical route was. They have multiple tools they can use in order to effect their desired outcome. They didn't need to drop the unopened toolbox from a 10-story building onto the problem, and then step themselves back, giving the impression of caving in. The modifications they have now come out with, all generally sensible, would have been the original outcome if they had bothered to discuss details with the CSM they way they should have. Instead, they brought it directly to the rabble using a worst-case scenario. That is bad judgment. And now that they have half of the people happy they showed moderation by using a logical process of change and review, they now have dopes who think they caved in. I guess you'd prefer a bad outcome as long as it means they didn't cave in on your illogical ideas. Make sense. Thank you for your insight, and good day sir.


Considering I was referring to what CCP intended to do and not making a comment about what they ought to have done, your lengthy explanation actually supports my point. It is far more reasonable to assume that CCP fully intended to drop the nerfquake and then backed away in the face of the tear tsunami that resulted. Your own confusion at why CCP would go about things in such an odd way if these tweaks were the original desired end point points to the more simple explanation that it never was the the desired end point. They were not "leaving themselves open to accusations of caving in"... they actually did cave in.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#899 - 2014-10-10 20:21:42 UTC
I haven't read the 45 pages of replies, but I think this update gives me everything I need to continue to do logistics in 0.0. The 10LY range on the JF is actually quite liberal. I am a big Rorqual advocate but I think keeping the 5 LY range on the Rorq will be fine. Basically, it won't be such a useful hauler to get ore from high sec out to factories. However, the philosophy of the ship as a deep space industrial base does not exactly need it to be able to zip back to Jita all the time. So a 10 LY range on the JF and a 5 LY range on the Rorq with both keeping a 90% fatigue reduction will basically keep null sec indy going, keep the moon goo market going, and enable smaller alliances to be active in more remote areas of space. Overall, these updates fix logistics.

I hadn't been paying so much attention to the BLOPs aspect, but I do think that following the logistics crowd the BLOPs crowd had the most valid objections and it looks like they've been addressed with buffs.

The additions do not change the state of the non-BLOPs capital ships. In my opinion the fatigue and timers and range nerf were appropriate to begin with. In my experience this fatigue idea is better than all the hard controls that players have been recommending for a while. There was one idea that could help cap fleets adjust to the new mechanics, though. If a FC has access to a pilot's fatigue through the fleet window he can kick people who won't be able to jump or who won't be able to make it home.

Basically I think CCP has done a lot of thinking and talking and receiving feedback and has addressed everything and I am happy about these changes as they are. If there is time, though, adding fatigue and jump timer information to the FC view of the fleet window might be an update to consider.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Templis CALSF
#900 - 2014-10-10 20:30:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Segava wrote:
Excellent work CCP.

Any news on a cap on extreme jump fatigue times? Or is this a myth that has been misunderstood?

Secondly, obviously you intend jump bridge travel to be slightly faster now that everyone will sit in a hauler to get around the universe. This is intended correct? It doesn't seem too different from the old days! If this is intended, then I am quite sad about reverting the intended goals.


Capped at 1 month of fatigue, so ~3 days of cooldown. And if people run around in haulers the whole time, we'll probably nerf them.

One month seems like a very low cap. It removes a lot of the disruptive potential of the change which has me somewhat less excited about the positive aspects of the long distance travel nerf.

One month isn't a very long time in EVE, especially on a large scale when you're talking about alliance/coalition deployments.

A cap is definitely needed to keep that math from going out of hand, but how did you arrive at a 1 month cap instead of 2/3?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM