These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Litia Cours
Bubba Gump Shrimping Corp
#1201 - 2014-10-14 13:02:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Faren Shalni wrote:
Can you reduce the training time on JDC as now it is no longer worth the 40 days needed to get it 5.

Also is the max jump range still 5 ly as on sisi the titan range with JDC 4 is 7ly


As I mentioned earlier, we'll be revisiting the skills once things settle down.

SiSi doesn't have these numbers, I only submitted them just before I made this thread!


I hope this means if there is a rebalancing of the skill multiplier for JDC that there will be a SP refund for those of us who have invested the time to train it to lvl 5?
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1202 - 2014-10-14 13:13:57 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
I have no problems with occupancy-based systems (at least in theory, I'll reserve final judgement until CCP's system is revealed/playtested extensively). I do, however, have a problem with "scaling sov costs" systems, because they don't work, aren't sandboxy and just reeks of isk envy.


I do believe we beat this horse to death yesterday :D


Beat on this one a while. Tell me anything you see wrong with it.

Polo Marco wrote:
The operational range nerf here is intended to REPLACE the single jump range nerf in ALL ships.

Under this all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

Naval ships and aircraft in the real world all operate out of home ports or bases. There is plenty of practical realism here as a premise for this mechanic.

It will require a new implant.



The JUMP DRIVE CLONE and the JUMP PILOT IMPLANT.

1) In order to use a jump drive, a pilot must have this special implant installed.

2) This implant may be installed in only ONE clone per pilot.

3) He may not jump further than 32ly from where the jump drive clone is installed.

4) The jump drive clone must be in a STATION and cannot be in a clone bay.

5) The jump drive clone can only be moved ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS.

The move cooldown and range limit should not be written in stone. They are just my initial ideas.

The mechanic presented here has a number of advantages. It should prevent taxiing and makes transfer clones to move ship assets redundant.

I suggest that it will make it easier on FCs, players, and servers alike, over the existing plans, while sharply interdicting long range projection of power.

The negative effects on small player entities will not be nearly as bad as with the current plan

I also suggest that the troublesome, bumpy and game risky mechanic of allowing caps to use stargates be deferred till a later time, until we see how the new system works. I feel this particular change should get its own release so its effects can be more carefully measured.If left in there would be an issue involving jump capable ships that have gate moved out of range. I suggest in this case no jumping till back within range of the pilot's base.


If you can shoot a hole in it do it. If you don't like it tell me why. I'm not really looking for positive feedback. I'm looking for problems.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#1203 - 2014-10-14 13:22:44 UTC
Moloney wrote:
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.


So what you're saying is that Interceptors need a nerf?!?!
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
#1204 - 2014-10-14 13:31:19 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Before I start with specifics:

Dream Five wrote:
I also don't understand how CCP expects at the same time having less stability/stagnation/blue donut in 0.0 and wanting more 0.0 production :) Those seem like opposite goals. If the environment is unstable you have to be completely irrational to invest capital in local manufacturing knowing that your POS/outpost might get captured anyday/hour now :)


So, less stable can still allow for alliances to hold space for months or years, and if producing in null gives a big advantage to winning in null, many people will do so even if it's expensive/risky.



I would like to point out that, if you assume that rewards of nullsec are a key factor in the motivation for living in nullsec (which I don't think is a huge leap for a majority of the population), this statement is only valid if null sec is more rewarding in proportion to the increased risk/expense of production.

Right now it absolutely isn't. Personally I'm giving a lot of thought right now to moving the majority of my characters to highsec because of the simple fact that null sec is becoming less and less worth it. Add the annoyance of making it a lot harder to move around, and I'm not sure the balance is still in favor of null for my isk-grinding characters.

Anecdotal evidence for sure, but when you throw around words like risk, you have to think of the other part of that equation.



Additional unrelated point re: rorquals. I think you should give a lot more thought to how nerfing rorquals will affect tower logistics. I'd imagine the vast majority of rorqual users will gladly give away their drone bonus for the same jump range as JFs. When you're looking at lots of towers (whether it's a reaction chain or just lots of mining moons + staging POSes, what have you), you need to deal with a lot of fueling, moving intermediates/output, exporting moon goo, etc.

Especially in back-end systems without stations nearby, you aren't going to take a blockade runner and move your POS-related stuff piecemeal. And you're almost certainly not going to take a freighter through gates in nullsec, because that would be idiotic. That leaves something with jump drives. Using rorquals is a lot nicer than a jump freighter in many cases right now, specifically because you're able to refit for your particular needs. For example, you can refit to cap so that you can get in and get out more quickly and spend a little less time doing soul-crushing logistics. Or you can refit a cloak so that, when you go to steal all the moongoo you've siphoned off those hostile towers, there's actually some reasonable chance you won't die.

The counter-argument I can imagine being brought up here is that people WANT tower logistics to be more dangerous, more risky, etc. Well sure, I guess you can make that argument. I'd ask that people making that argument think to themselves whether or not people are REALLY going to risk 5-6+B isk ships regularly if they think they're in danger, and if they REALLY think that limiting logistics to JFs (instead of having rorquals as a viable alternative) would REALLY result in a significant number of kills (more than 2-3 more per month, maybe). Or is all it would do is make tower logistics that much more tedious since, presumably, people who do POS logistics long term aren't complete idiots because they haven't died yet, and they aren't going to regularly put their jump freighters into positions where they're going to easily die.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1205 - 2014-10-14 13:35:59 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
If the capital is expected to travel through gates, it should have special abilities to make it so that gate travel was not extremely risky and thus suicide.

1) Warp bubble immunity is a "must" otherwise the cap will be slow boating at around 50m/s through a bubble with extreme vulnerabilities to being bumped. +2-4 to warp core strength is also a really good idea and makes sense because it is such a big ship, otherwise it will be insta-locked by the first interceptor to land on grid before the 30-60s cap align time for warping out.

You do realize that being able to take gates is a massive buff to capitals, right?

Also, these interceptors should be easy to get rid of by utilizing a subcap support fleet. Capitals aren't supposed to be used without support.

Andy Landen wrote:
2) After getting tackled by a cheap interceptor, the capital ship would then have to spend 30-60s just to lock the little ship up. The carrier would require another 30-60s more to get the drones on it. 1-2 min of being tackled is plenty of time for an enemy fleet to come in from beyond scout range and take over the tackle. Non-carrier capitals won't even be able to track the interceptor.

Capitals should not be used alone, and should not be without a support fleet. Don't deploy capitals unless you're sure you can get to where you're going, or are willing to fight for the right to get to where you're going by utilizing subcaps.

Every other kind of ship in Eve can travel solo with acceptable risk including the battleship which can use the micro jump drive, and mwd, neither of which are available to the capital ship. Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong. Caps need at least a micro jump drive and mwd if they are expected to ever take a gate alone. There is no reason that a capital ship should not be able to fit those. Furthermore, it makes sense that these massive ships will have greater abilities regarding warp core stability and bubble immunity. Currently, a capital cannot kill a dictor bubble, and only the carrier can kill small bubbles with light or medium drones and significant time.

The idea of forcing capital pilots to rely on the alliance in order to protect them in every single little thing, including traveling, is absurd. Would you want to have to convince 100 people to jump into a pvp ship in order to escort you in one of your sub-cap ships EVERY TIME you want to jump a few gates? Capital ships should be powerful in many, many ways, including travel. Capital ships should be feared, not because of the massive fleet protecting them, but because of their own capabilities!

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#1206 - 2014-10-14 13:37:33 UTC
Faren Shalni wrote:
Can you reduce the training time on JDC as now it is no longer worth the 40 days needed to get it 5.

Also is the max jump range still 5 ly as on sisi the titan range with JDC 4 is 7ly



I like this idea, even though I already have it trained. Forty days is redonkulously long for such an essential skill.

A new skill enititled "Cynosural Constitution" or something like that would be a nice counterbalance to the jump fatigue though. Figure it at 5% reduction in fatigue per level, and put that at the longer skill training level. 25% at level 5 is worth training that 40 days for.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1207 - 2014-10-14 13:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Skyler Hawk
Andy Landen wrote:
Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong.

Capitals are completely incapable of traveling solo at present unless you want to do nothing but jump to POS beacons, which is why capital pilots have cyno alts.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#1208 - 2014-10-14 13:42:36 UTC
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong.

Capitals are completely incapable of traveling solo at present unless you want to do nothing but jump to beacons, which is why capital pilots have cyno alts.


And solo jumping to beacons (unscouted) is just plain dumb. Why don't you drink out of the toilet as well? Shocked

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1209 - 2014-10-14 13:43:02 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
If the capital is expected to travel through gates, it should have special abilities to make it so that gate travel was not extremely risky and thus suicide.

1) Warp bubble immunity is a "must" otherwise the cap will be slow boating at around 50m/s through a bubble with extreme vulnerabilities to being bumped. +2-4 to warp core strength is also a really good idea and makes sense because it is such a big ship, otherwise it will be insta-locked by the first interceptor to land on grid before the 30-60s cap align time for warping out.

You do realize that being able to take gates is a massive buff to capitals, right?

Also, these interceptors should be easy to get rid of by utilizing a subcap support fleet. Capitals aren't supposed to be used without support.

Andy Landen wrote:
2) After getting tackled by a cheap interceptor, the capital ship would then have to spend 30-60s just to lock the little ship up. The carrier would require another 30-60s more to get the drones on it. 1-2 min of being tackled is plenty of time for an enemy fleet to come in from beyond scout range and take over the tackle. Non-carrier capitals won't even be able to track the interceptor.

Capitals should not be used alone, and should not be without a support fleet. Don't deploy capitals unless you're sure you can get to where you're going, or are willing to fight for the right to get to where you're going by utilizing subcaps.

Every other kind of ship in Eve can travel solo with acceptable risk including the battleship which can use the micro jump drive, and mwd, neither of which are available to the capital ship. Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong. Caps need at least a micro jump drive and mwd if they are expected to ever take a gate alone. There is no reason that a capital ship should not be able to fit those. Furthermore, it makes sense that these massive ships will have greater abilities regarding warp core stability and bubble immunity. Currently, a capital cannot kill a dictor bubble, and only the carrier can kill small bubbles with light or medium drones and significant time.

The idea of forcing capital pilots to rely on the alliance in order to protect them in every single little thing, including traveling, is absurd. Would you want to have to convince 100 people to jump into a pvp ship in order to escort you in one of your sub-cap ships EVERY TIME you want to jump a few gates? Capital ships should be powerful in many, many ways, including travel. Capital ships should be feared, not because of the massive fleet protecting them, but because of their own capabilities!

Capitals haven't ever been able to travel on their own, they've always had to rely on either someone lighting a cyno, or someone else setting up a cyno beacon.

Now, they CAN travel completely on their own if they so choose, but that means they're going to be great big lumbering whales just waiting for someone to come **** them up. Don't like it? Don't try to travel alone in a capital ship, then. Choose something more appropriate for the job.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1210 - 2014-10-14 13:43:42 UTC
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong.

Capitals are completely incapable of traveling solo at present unless you want to do nothing but jump to POS beacons, which is why capital pilots have cyno alts.

A cyno alt is not a support fleet. It is essentially traveling solo, esp. when the alt is one of your own accounts and has no pvp capabilities. The capital essential travels solo. Don't get caught up in semantics.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1211 - 2014-10-14 13:45:34 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Capitals have always been able to travel on their own using their own independent jump drives so don't say that they aren't supposed to be able to travel solo because that is just flat wrong.

Capitals are completely incapable of traveling solo at present unless you want to do nothing but jump to POS beacons, which is why capital pilots have cyno alts.

A cyno alt is not a support fleet. It is essentially traveling solo, esp. when the alt is one of your own accounts and has no pvp capabilities. The capital essential travels solo. Don't get caught up in semantics.

Good news: when these changes hit you'll be able to unironically say "look ma, no alts/gens!".
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1212 - 2014-10-14 13:48:40 UTC
Momma Yeti wrote:
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...


Oh no. People might not log in. That's it Greyscale. I'm sorry to say the jig is up. Please stop trying to make the game less stagnant at once - you might accidentally make someone not log in.

Did it ever occur to you, oh special snowflake, that the reason the graph is trending as it is is precisely because the game is stagnant and boring? But by all means, feel free to Chicken Little some more if you like.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#1213 - 2014-10-14 13:51:48 UTC
We're going to bump the max range of black ops ships up slightly to 8LY, and likewise give them a ~50% fatigue bonus


I was looking at this, and was thinking, "OK, I like the idea of a reduction in fatigue, but..wouldn't a reduction in the timer be more beneficial to a black ops pilot?"

Think about it, whats the black ops main defense? Get in, blap, GTFO.

I would be ok taking my fatigue back in my origin system rather than waiting out my jump timer in a hostile system. If I have to wait out that timer as is, then I'm sitting with my ass hanging out of my pants waiting for surprise buttsecks.

If you can't give blops a reduction in the jump timer, and can only give the reduction in fatigue, then give us our covert ops cloak!!!

Make the reduction in the timer dependant on Black ops skill level; 5% per level or 7.5%. A total 25-30% reduction overall in the jump timer wouldn't be OP, it would be a great bonus to black ops pilots in general, making that 40 days again to train it worth while.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1214 - 2014-10-14 13:54:52 UTC
Steve Korakat wrote:
EVE learning curve is difficult already and many players have given up from the beginning.

This patch/nerf is way too confusing. Can we make adjustment in a simple stupid manner?



No. Trying to fix a problem as complex as this one with a "simple" fix would just create more mess.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Moloney
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1215 - 2014-10-14 14:03:19 UTC
xttz wrote:
Moloney wrote:
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.


So what you're saying is that Interceptors need a nerf?!?!


Learn to read or go get mittens to read it for you if all intelligence in your coalition is in one member.

But since it would be a heavily propaganda influenced recitation here is the statement in less words:

Attach equal cooldown to pilots and ship.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1216 - 2014-10-14 14:08:56 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Steve Korakat wrote:
EVE learning curve is difficult already and many players have given up from the beginning.

This patch/nerf is way too confusing. Can we make adjustment in a simple stupid manner?



No. Trying to fix a problem as complex as this one with a "simple" fix would just create more mess.


What's wrong with this?

Polo Marco wrote:
The operational range nerf here is intended to REPLACE the single jump range nerf in ALL ships.

Under this all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

Naval ships and aircraft in the real world all operate out of home ports or bases. There is plenty of practical realism here as a premise for this mechanic.

It will require a new implant.



The JUMP DRIVE CLONE and the JUMP PILOT IMPLANT.

1) In order to use a jump drive, a pilot must have this special implant installed.

2) This implant may be installed in only ONE clone per pilot.

3) He may not jump further than 32ly from where the jump drive clone is installed.

4) The jump drive clone must be in a STATION and cannot be in a clone bay.

5) The jump drive clone can only be moved ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS.

The move cooldown and range limit should not be written in stone. They are just my initial ideas.

The mechanic presented here has a number of advantages. It should prevent taxiing and makes transfer clones to move ship assets redundant.

I suggest that it will make it easier on FCs, players, and servers alike, over the existing plans, while sharply interdicting long range projection of power.

The negative effects on small player entities will not be nearly as bad as with the current plan

I also suggest that the troublesome, bumpy and game risky mechanic of allowing caps to use stargates be deferred till a later time, until we see how the new system works. I feel this particular change should get its own release so its effects can be more carefully measured.If left in there would be an issue involving jump capable ships that have gate moved out of range. I suggest in this case no jumping till back within range of the pilot's base.




Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1217 - 2014-10-14 14:32:04 UTC
Panther X wrote:
We're going to bump the max range of black ops ships up slightly to 8LY, and likewise give them a ~50% fatigue bonus


I was looking at this, and was thinking, "OK, I like the idea of a reduction in fatigue, but..wouldn't a reduction in the timer be more beneficial to a black ops pilot?"

Think about it, whats the black ops main defense? Get in, blap, GTFO.


Except Cap pilots would use Blops ships as cooling towers, travel in cap and park in a Blops to speed up recovery. Not to hit and run, just to recover

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1218 - 2014-10-14 15:05:42 UTC
xttz wrote:
Moloney wrote:
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.


So what you're saying is that Interceptors need a nerf?!?!



No.. probably that the fatigue should affect both the pilot and the ships to avoid pony express stuff.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1219 - 2014-10-14 15:08:07 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Panther X wrote:
We're going to bump the max range of black ops ships up slightly to 8LY, and likewise give them a ~50% fatigue bonus


I was looking at this, and was thinking, "OK, I like the idea of a reduction in fatigue, but..wouldn't a reduction in the timer be more beneficial to a black ops pilot?"

Think about it, whats the black ops main defense? Get in, blap, GTFO.


Except Cap pilots would use Blops ships as cooling towers, travel in cap and park in a Blops to speed up recovery. Not to hit and run, just to recover

m



He said timmer, not in rate of fatigue recovery.


Anyway if you have a fatigue reduction. MEans a balck ops can jump in kill jump out in few minutes and the fatigue panalty that will affect his next jump timmer will not be on a HUGE scale.

IT is a reasonable tradeoff.

But I think Black ops still need some work on the level of tactical capabilities . Like... a bit more EHP for god's sake... :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1220 - 2014-10-14 15:15:11 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I have not checked the entire thread, but has this been a Tippia free thread?



Tippia is probably on a sabbatical from Eve online.

No posts in 10 days.