These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1381 - 2014-10-17 12:52:07 UTC
It's interesting that folks are still arguing "But this will totally change how I play the game" even after CCP has come out with "Yeah, that's what we're going for"
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1382 - 2014-10-17 13:05:56 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
While we are at it - it would actually be great if CCP would eliminate jump bridges as a whole. If i am not mistaken there will be player created jump gates one day - so jump bridges should be obsolete latest at that stage of changes. It would perfectly fit to the currently announced changes.


While we are at it, lets not forget that the purpose of the new gates will be to explore new regions of space, not replace existing items.

https://www.google.com/search?q=player+built+stargates
also

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3900584#post3900584

"Currently undergoing strategic expansion through multi-year roadmap introduced at EVE Fanfest 2013, where players will ultimately construct new stargates to expand the known EVE Universe for all products"
"all products" being "EvE online, Dust514, and Valkyrie"

That should help

o/
Celly Smunt




You forget the important part of Seagull stating : 'Everything shall be destructible' - that would include existing gates ;)

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1383 - 2014-10-17 13:13:57 UTC
Until they start talking about destructible gates and stations etc again, I'd suggest taking that with a grain of salt.
mannyman
Relics United
#1384 - 2014-10-17 13:19:58 UTC
I welcome power projection very much, but I think CCP needs to listen to alliance leaders manifest !

due to the specific changes coming, I cancelled subscription for 3 accounts today. Ill keep my main toon active.

I dont need active sub for super toon ,so that one got closed.
I dont need active sub for cyno toons, so this one got closed.
I dont need active sub for second acc as that was my main cyno toon, mabye during very active gameplay Ill plex this account again, but only once or twice a year.

so, ccp is loosing a good chunk of real dollars every month from me now!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1385 - 2014-10-17 13:32:08 UTC
I just got a new accout to train up HIC pilots to tackle those few super cap pilots who don't unsub as they jump through gates.

I think you are underlining a big part of the current problem. You're playing mostly afk. You only need to sub periodically to address timers of interest.

Here's the big question for you. When CCP is done stomping on the game crushing SOV timers.... What will you do then. When your super is constantly needed to address fast breaking situations that don't involve the twice a year timer of interest log on.

What will you do then? Will you resub, log in and play the game? Or will you just watch from the sidelines and complain that all the fast breaking action is too much for you??

My advice... Let go of the current no fun and no risk blue donut. Embrace the new challenges and constant conflict. It will hopefully be glorious. If it's not.... well I'll still wager it will be more fun than the current craptastic null play.

(Pro hint: folks are already starting to maneuver to capitalize on the changes, unsub now and you may miss something)
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1386 - 2014-10-17 13:44:43 UTC
Doing some basic math on all those 'i am ragequitting/unsubbing' and the number of players listed in the different coalition alliances paints a funny picture - if any of it is going to be true we will not have any 5-digit members coalitions anymore :D

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1387 - 2014-10-17 14:11:20 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Greyscale:
Although we'd all like to loosen the null logjam, I see such a sweeping change in jump travel as having far too many collateral effects to be worthwhile as a tool to address a very narrow issue. Several of us in here have presented alternative ideas that don't hobble playstyles with no impact the nullsec environment in general. Throwing the JF bone to the mob has lessened the negative feedback, but other aspects like ship delivery to market and redeployment of non strategic assets have been crippled here.

I hope you will consider a remake of this issue if what you are doing here ends up hurting the game more than helping it. There is a LOT of talk where I play at about SP refunds for cap skill trade ins.

DO you have a backup plan?



We're broadly of the opinion that easy teleportation is bad in all its form, which is why we're making a fairly far-reaching change. The primary focus is combat deployment, but when it's easier to include rather than exclude other things we'd like to tone down anyway, our default position is to spread wide.

If there are use cases other than those already addressed by JFs, clone changes etc that you feel are unjustifiably hit by this change, please explain them concisely! Giving alternate solutions doesn't help our decision-making if we don't understand what problems you're trying to address.

As to backup plans... strictly, no, because we don't have "plans", we have planning, which these days assumes that we will have need for changes, reworks and so on. As we've said in a way that I hope has been pretty consistent, we want to hit our goals, and we'll keep reevaluating and iterating until we decide we're close enough. If we find we're in a dead end, we'll look for another route.

Lord TGR wrote:
The reason I'm putting more on the blame for the current equilibrium on the sov system than on jump travel is because every war I've been in the last 4 years has had one, maybe two fronts, and I strongly doubt that the jump travel changes would've had any appreciable impact on the outcompe.

I'm still convinced that the sov system's going to have the biggest bang for the buck, and I'm thinking you could've limited the changes to caps to just the LY they can jump in one go if the sov system had been done first. Having said that I understand why the caps changes are done first, and I'd never thought you guys would go so far as to allow caps to actually take gates.

I can only hope that this is an indication that you guys are prepared to be just as willing to go to extreme measures with the sov system, and come up with something which does make nullsec non-stagnant. I've only been waiting for this day for 3, probably 4 years, since it just became more and more obvious with every war I participated in that we were heading in the direction we were heading in, i.e. a stagnant null where nobody wanted to actually start the next war because it would just mean grinding with bombers and a few large fights where the outcome of 1-2 fights broke the resolution of one of the sides, and the remainder of the region was just swept up by the victor.


We're not prioritizing jump changes just because of their tactical use in wartime, but also because of the strategic realities they create. It's not (just) about creating multi-front wars, it's about undermining the need and desire for large coalitions in the first place. Military leaders sensibly optimize for the largest plausible threat, and the combination of capital proliferation and the lessons learned from the Great War (the one with BoB) led us to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone in nullsec who's not your ally attacks you at the same time". If we could move to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone living within two regions who's not your ally attacks you at the same time", the strategic *need* for cluster-spanning coalitions goes away. The other half of the question is whether in that scenario the *desire* for cluster-spanning coalitions shrinks enough to have that actually happen. We don't strongly anticipate this happening amongst coalition leadership, but we are somewhat hopeful that, over the course of time and supported by other adjustments, the need to keep their combat pilots happy with accessible targets will force their hand.

This is all obviously somewhat speculative; we have rough models of behavior that lead us towards this sort of thinking, but the only way to test them is to make these sorts of changes and compare results with predictions - of which we have a reasonably broad range internally, so it'll be interesting to see how things play out :)

xttz wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
rather than not having any changes hit before probably January.


Your initial blog mentioned a rebalance of starbase weapons, but there's been no word on them since then. Is it still planned for the next update?


I'm not entirely sure what the status is on that, it's something Fozzie was investigating. Your best bet at a fast answer is to find someone at Vegas and get them to ask him :)

Andy Landen wrote:

The idea that a punk frigate with puny dps should be able to take down a battleship is beyond absurd. A battleship's tank far exceeds the frigate's dps. This is an issue of size.


This is fundamentally in opposition to our current design thinking, which I don't believe is likely to change any time soon.

Red Bluesteel wrote:
Hey CCP,

with these changes, do you also implement an Ingame Jump Planer witch do all the calculations for us, so that we can plan things like how long we need to stay till we can Jump again / Fat Cow Timers is 0 again and this for the whole journey Question

Don't think all of us are Math geniuses or only lacy peoples Roll


It's a thing that we would like to revisit again, but one of the key questions that comes up every...
Viaharo Musa
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#1388 - 2014-10-17 14:23:06 UTC
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1389 - 2014-10-17 14:27:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
It's a thing that we would like to revisit again, but one of the key questions that comes up every time is whether we can/want to compete with player-run services in this regard.


I think you should want to. all this stuff where you need to use a third party tool because the in-game ones are a joke by comparison, aren't they an embarassment? something something accessibility something new player retention.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1390 - 2014-10-17 14:27:48 UTC
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1391 - 2014-10-17 14:27:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Military leaders sensibly optimize for the largest plausible threat, and the combination of capital proliferation and the lessons learned from the Great War (the one with BoB) led us to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone in nullsec who's not your ally attacks you at the same time". If we could move to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone living within two regions who's not your ally attacks you at the same time", the strategic *need* for cluster-spanning coalitions goes away. The other half of the question is whether in that scenario the *desire* for cluster-spanning coalitions shrinks enough to have that actually happen. We don't strongly anticipate this happening amongst coalition leadership, but we are somewhat hopeful that, over the course of time and supported by other adjustments, the need to keep their combat pilots happy with accessible targets will force their hand.
(Emphasis added)
With all due respect, I feel you've completely underestimated, and misunderstood, the desire side of the need/desire equation. You are correct that when all of nullsec can descend on you in one fell swoop, there is great strategic value in being part of a large coalition. But the other benefit of large coalitions is in having large areas where you can freely roam with relatively reduced risk of encountering a major problem. The bigger your coalition, the bigger the area of space you have to freely operate out of.

This is why hisec is, and will always be, more popular, and densely populated, than nullsec. It's not about income disparity or boredom or looking for fights. It's about the ability to just get up and go somewhere. This is going to be a major factor holding large coalitions together even if you were to remove jump drives entirely.

People like freedom. Big coalitions give people in nullsec more freedom. These travel changes do nothing to address that, and realistically there is nothing that CCP can do to address that because it's human nature.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1392 - 2014-10-17 14:28:52 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're broadly of the opinion that easy teleportation is bad in all its form, which is why we're making a fairly far-reaching change. The primary focus is combat deployment, but when it's easier to include rather than exclude other things we'd like to tone down anyway, our default position is to spread wide.

If there are use cases other than those already addressed by JFs, clone changes etc that you feel are unjustifiably hit by this change, please explain them concisely! Giving alternate solutions doesn't help our decision-making if we don't understand what problems you're trying to address.

As to backup plans... strictly, no, because we don't have "plans", we have planning, which these days assumes that we will have need for changes, reworks and so on. As we've said in a way that I hope has been pretty consistent, we want to hit our goals, and we'll keep reevaluating and iterating until we decide we're close enough. If we find we're in a dead end, we'll look for another route.


This idea I have been bouncing around, and still am... when I have time, seems to address the large entity projection issue with much less collateral effect than across the board range nerfs:




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

All existing ship Jump ranges will remain unchanged.

Under this mechanic all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

(There has been input suggesting JFs, Rorqs and Blops be exempted. What do YOU think?)

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.


The JUMP BASE

1) Each pilot must stipulate a JUMP BASE station on his character sheet.

2) A pilot may only use his jump drive within 32ly of this base, and he may not jump beyond this radius.

3) A pilot may only change his designated JUMP BASE once every SEVEN DAYS.

4) A new pilot's starting JUMP BASE will always be the rookie station in the rookie system where they enter the game, and the player may change it as often as cooldown allows, but there must always be an existing station designated as that pilot's JUMP BASE.

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.



I realize your current plans are well advanced, but I also see collateral economic, added grind and player-fun issues which may later overshadow any balancing results you may achieve here, so keep ideas like mine for future reference in case things need to be rethought.



Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Viaharo Musa
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#1393 - 2014-10-17 14:30:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Viaharo Musa
Dwissi wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO



Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement.
If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1394 - 2014-10-17 14:33:14 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're broadly of the opinion that easy teleportation is bad in all its form, which is why we're making a fairly far-reaching change. The primary focus is combat deployment, but when it's easier to include rather than exclude other things we'd like to tone down anyway, our default position is to spread wide.

If there are use cases other than those already addressed by JFs, clone changes etc that you feel are unjustifiably hit by this change, please explain them concisely! Giving alternate solutions doesn't help our decision-making if we don't understand what problems you're trying to address.

As to backup plans... strictly, no, because we don't have "plans", we have planning, which these days assumes that we will have need for changes, reworks and so on. As we've said in a way that I hope has been pretty consistent, we want to hit our goals, and we'll keep reevaluating and iterating until we decide we're close enough. If we find we're in a dead end, we'll look for another route.


This idea I have been bouncing around, and still am... when I have time, seems to address the large entity projection issue with much less collateral effect than across the board range nerfs:




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

All existing ship Jump ranges will remain unchanged.

Under this mechanic all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

(There has been input suggesting JFs, Rorqs and Blops be exempted. What do YOU think?)

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.


The JUMP BASE

1) Each pilot must stipulate a JUMP BASE station on his character sheet.

2) A pilot may only use his jump drive within 32ly of this base, and he may not jump beyond this radius.

3) A pilot may only change his designated JUMP BASE once every SEVEN DAYS.

4) A new pilot's starting JUMP BASE will always be the rookie station in the rookie system where they enter the game, and the player may change it as often as cooldown allows, but there must always be an existing station designated as that pilot's JUMP BASE.

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.



I realize your current plans are well advanced, but I also see collateral economic, added grind and player-fun issues which may later overshadow any balancing results you may achieve here, so keep ideas like mine for future reference in case things need to be rethought.






It's over dude, just let go.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1395 - 2014-10-17 14:34:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
Viaharo Musa wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO



Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement.
If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.


check this - the question asked by Vincent Athena and the answer from Greyscale is just one of the latest for that

Mechanics is : your destination is a high sec system - stay the f... out of it with your capital. Not going to be changed. Fullstop

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1396 - 2014-10-17 14:36:21 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:


It's over dude, just let go.


Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1397 - 2014-10-17 14:38:50 UTC
I'm assuming greyscale is still perusing this thread, any plans to introduce modules/rigs affecting the various stats? With drawbacks to match the benefits of course.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1398 - 2014-10-17 14:38:54 UTC
Viaharo Musa wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO



Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement.
If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.



I'm all for caps in HS, but ONLY if they get a suspect flag upon entering. I mean, they're not supposed to be there anymore, so if that were to change.... it would be suspicious..... so a suspect flag (that's a flag not a timer) seems a fair comprimise. It also seems reasonable that if you're arbitrarily dropping their badwidth down to BS levels it only follows that it would be fair and just to drop the EHP down to BS levels also.

Summary:
Advantage - Capitals can move through HS
Drawback- The pilot is flagged with a supect flag
Drone bandwith is reduced to 125
EHP gets capped at 150k


Let's get this done!!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1399 - 2014-10-17 14:40:08 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


It's over dude, just let go.


Quitters never win, and winners never quit.



Lol, I didn't say quit. Just telling you to put down the losing hand. The dealer is active and I think the next hand will be much better.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1400 - 2014-10-17 14:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO



Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement.
If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.



I'm all for caps in HS, but ONLY if they get a suspect flag upon entering. I mean, they're not supposed to be there anymore, so if that were to change.... it would be suspicious..... so a suspect flag (that's a flag not a timer) seems a fair comprimise. It also seems reasonable that if you're arbitrarily dropping their badwidth down to BS levels it only follows that it would be fair and just to drop the EHP down to BS levels also.

Summary:
Advantage - Capitals can move through HS
Drawback- The pilot is flagged with a supect flag
Drone bandwith is reduced to 125
EHP gets capped at 150k


Let's get this done!!


Seriously - not going to happen . Why? Because then all industrialists will start a new threadonaut to get the ability back to produce capitals in high sec again. Intertwined system - remember?

P.S. On second note: Chribba will hate you for becoming a suspect when he undocks the veld-naught ;)

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty