These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#1421 - 2014-10-17 16:51:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.


Now we are getting somewhere. What exactly are your *goals* so that we may convince you that they need improving? You seem to be a little out of touch with your player base. Help us to help you. Developing in a vacuum, is your prerogative as EVE is yours, but it would not be the best route IMO.

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1422 - 2014-10-17 17:05:12 UTC
Overall,

The changes to the jump range of all ships is pretty bad guys. Your just putting a boring mechanic in the game without realizing the long term consequences. I have talked to some friends that are pretty much done because of these changes. I am still hanging on the fence, but I am definitely not resubbing till the dust settles a bit.

Wanting us to produce locally will not occur, unless the demand / supply is worth it. Trying to change a long established market in Jita by crippling jump ranges, is not a good idea. All industrialist that produce any quantity of goods depends on the central market to collect supplies and to sell their goods. Thinking that we are going to get a sufficient supply and demand in each region is laughable.

Another thing is, I know people that have trained for capitals for a long time. A big reason they trained towards lets say a carrier, is purely logistical. One guy was like, how do I move all my combat ships now ? That is a good question. Corps die, alliances die, but players want to be able to move their stuff out. Without an "escape plan" some players will not risk their isk to come out to null.

The last thing I want to address is the rorqual. Right now the rorqual is the supreme mining booster. It takes a lot of time and skill points to train up. Don't marginalize what took some of us a very long time to train up. I am also confident the drone damage modifier has never been used by any serious industrialist ever. It is a ship with a lot of potential.

Since I know you guys have conviced yourselves this upgrade is for the best, here is something to consider as well. Give us our jump range only if we are carrying ore in our cargo. If we have other items in our hold, then give us the 5 ly. This allows us to at least be able to move the ore we need to different areas.

Also, just do away with the drone damage, unless you do something substantial like give capital strip miners. No one I know that has had a rorqual for any length of time puts it in a belt, unless they want to die.

Along with this some ability some increased way of being able to get away would be needed. Make this ship what it was suppose to be, something that could jump in deploy, mine away then jump out. I thought it was used for deep space mining, but in reality its just used for boosting from a POS as anything else will get you killed almost instantly.

Good luck with this upgrade, I personally think the negative backlash will wake you up a bit. Trying to break up sov because you think null is boring means that the idea of a sandbox is ok, unless someone dominates the box. Not sure if that is a game I want to be part of. Just like we had a threadnaught when SOE did the NGE in SWG, they were convinced the upgrade was needed. The game is no longer alive, as I am sure you are aware. Perhaps its best to listen to your base that has been around for many years, but hell that would only make sense. Force be with you.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1423 - 2014-10-17 17:20:27 UTC
Zhul Chembull wrote:
Querns wrote:
-snip for the sake of reading-
This is somewhat offtopic, but I feel it is worth mentioning. I'll probably repost this in the (eventual) rorqual balance thread, especially if the rorqual's bonuses are untouched.

I actually agree with this, broadly -- the rorqual's bonuses roughly double the output of a single miner. When we talk about mining ISK / hr, you always factor in maximum rorqual gang boosts, because you'd be a fool not to do the one thing that doubles your mining output. The third person invited to a mining fleet should always be a rorqual booster; he has the largest effect on your ISK / hr.

I'd like to see mining throughput tilted more strongly towards the mining ship by removing some of the power of the rorqual's boosts and giving it to mining barges instead. This improves isk / hr for the folks who haven't had the better part of a year to train leadership skills and rorqual piloting skills (which is, invariably, the newer players.)


Disagree here immensely. The only thing at this point the rorqual does better is boost. This is not without added cost as constant roqual boosts equated to about 1 mil m3 heavy water per month.


I hope it is clear that I accidentally dove over here still in search of a pattern that reveals to me on how CCP is changing things?

The things about the Rorqual I wrote was just that, even if I again accidentally hit a nerve.

But maybe you can help me find what we need to know?

Okay just play along for a second:

Ishtar -> missiles
Bombs and IsBoxer -> cloak, mobility for stealth bombers
Rorqual -> ???

Who knows, at some point I will figure it out.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Viaharo Musa
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#1424 - 2014-10-17 17:23:05 UTC
Dwissi 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.


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


That is explaining a current mechanic not being addressed in this update. if you actually search a bit more, you will see that the last answer about if its going to be changed or not in ccp's plan for capital movement, is they want to revisit that at a later discussion. Id link it but.... Search a bit more and you'll find it.

My questions i originally asked are directed at CCP devs. Not players :-)
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1425 - 2014-10-17 17:38:55 UTC
I think your need to voice your opinion just triggered anothers need to voice theirs. It's fair play.

My opinion... you're looking for a way to safely move captals and assets in those capitals around eve without the risk of losing them. I don't think that's the direction they are taking the game.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1426 - 2014-10-17 17:47:04 UTC
Viaharo Musa wrote:


That is explaining a current mechanic not being addressed in this update. if you actually search a bit more, you will see that the last answer about if its going to be changed or not in ccp's plan for capital movement, is they want to revisit that at a later discussion. Id link it but.... Search a bit more and you'll find it.

My questions i originally asked are directed at CCP devs. Not players :-)


Note: Above snipped for readability

by slightly rephrasing the same question over and over again you dont state anything new - thats why i actually 'linked' - you didnt even have to search yourself. Your statement was 'that you fail to see any reason...' - the answers given earlier where already stating its not going to happen in this update - so why ask again for something that has been made irrelevant for THIS topic.

Any change regarding capitals and high sec will just start another scream throughout eve as that is one complete topic for itself in the end as it is more complex than what you like to make it in your statement.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Viaharo Musa
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#1427 - 2014-10-17 17:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Viaharo Musa
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think your need to voice your opinion just triggered anothers need to voice theirs. It's fair play.

My opinion... you're looking for a way to safely move capitals and assets in those capitals around eve without the risk of losing them. I don't think that's the direction they are taking the game.


No. Im looking to keep the risk to capitals balanced. The current changes make it very dangerous for a solo player to move.
even in fleets its going to be exponentially more dangerous. This being as now whole regions are out of range of any npc system or route. Leaving the only route being THROUGH player controlled space. This will effectively put a HUGE hamper on any new cap pilot getting to a destination region how ever long it takes. I agree with keeping the time reduced to what ccp is aiming for. Not the cutting off of entire regions leaving access to them controlled through player regions... Aka if you want to get to stain. All some one has to do to control stain is lock down the surrounding regions. This will be abused in its current fashion TRUST ME. Why do you think the big blocks are actively making capital caches?


SO. No im not loing for a way to safely move them. Im looking for a WAY to move them period as a solo player to all regions. Inline with ccp trying to make it easier for people to play in null.

So ill ask this question of the CCP dev's, How do you envision the solo capital pilot being able to move around. Say from low sec to stain?? or low sec to ore space.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1428 - 2014-10-17 17:52:02 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


It's over dude, just let go.


Quitters never win, and winners never quit.



Knowing when you have lost is part of winning.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1429 - 2014-10-17 18:02:10 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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 :)

I still think you're overestimating the effect the jump changes will have on coalitions, as the sov system still rewards shoving as much EHP and DPS into a system as is possible. While the jump changes do open the door for someone to kick someone in 2 places and force them to actually either split their forces, spend a day travelling or risk losing a system/some other resource, I'm still pretty certain that the real difference in the political environment between/internally in the coalitions will come with the sov changes.

I'm so certain about that that I'd bet a beer on the sov changes bringing about more tumult than the jump changes.

It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.

I believe this is what CCP is going for.

If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1430 - 2014-10-17 18:03:30 UTC
Easthir Ravin wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.


Now we are getting somewhere. What exactly are your *goals* so that we may convince you that they need improving? You seem to be a little out of touch with your player base. Help us to help you. Developing in a vacuum, is your prerogative as EVE is yours, but it would not be the best route IMO.



Your assumptions are incorrect. Only part of the player base are unable to see what the issue is and why it is being fixed this way.
They seem to refuse to because they most benefited from the problem in the first place.

This may not be the case for all of the ones who can't figure this out(or refuse to), but it certainly does for many of them.
Viaharo Musa
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#1431 - 2014-10-17 18:05:35 UTC
Quote:

It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.

I believe this is what CCP is going for.

If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?



Could not agree more, Right inline with my question to the Dev's.
Problem gets compounded even worse for the player moving around solo...
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1432 - 2014-10-17 18:11:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
Byson1 wrote:
It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.

I believe this is what CCP is going for.

If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?



It will be the start of removing a reason to be in a large coalition. If you can't get way over there to help in a reasonable time, why be part of the organization.

To be honest, I think you underestimate CCP's desire the remove the need for large coalitions. If this doesn't do the trick they will make it even harder to move combat forces.


What I do hope they implement in the Sov changes is the "Treaties" idea from several years ago. That and these movement changes can go a long way to Null a lot friendlier to smaller organizations.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1433 - 2014-10-17 18:21:55 UTC
Viaharo Musa wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think your need to voice your opinion just triggered anothers need to voice theirs. It's fair play.

My opinion... you're looking for a way to safely move capitals and assets in those capitals around eve without the risk of losing them. I don't think that's the direction they are taking the game.


No. Im looking to keep the risk to capitals balanced. The current changes make it very dangerous for a solo player to move.
even in fleets its going to be exponentially more dangerous. This being as now whole regions are out of range of any npc system or route. Leaving the only route being THROUGH player controlled space. This will effectively put a HUGE hamper on any new cap pilot getting to a destination region how ever long it takes. I agree with keeping the time reduced to what ccp is aiming for. Not the cutting off of entire regions leaving access to them controlled through player regions... Aka if you want to get to stain. All some one has to do to control stain is lock down the surrounding regions. This will be abused in its current fashion TRUST ME. Why do you think the big blocks are actively making capital caches?


SO. No im not loing for a way to safely move them. Im looking for a WAY to move them period as a solo player to all regions. Inline with ccp trying to make it easier for people to play in null.

So ill ask this question of the CCP dev's, How do you envision the solo capital pilot being able to move around. Say from low sec to stain?? or low sec to ore space.


There is not risk to capital movement... It's not balanced..... It's being corrected...... you don't like that...... we hear you..... we just don't agree with you..... you're starting to come off as a whiner..... risk free cap movement all across eve is over....... OVER

What you call abuse.... I call justice. We'll need to agree to disagree on that. It's time to expect to occaisionally lose a ship. P
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1434 - 2014-10-17 18:23:44 UTC
Tikitina wrote:
Byson1 wrote:
It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.

I believe this is what CCP is going for.

If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?



It will be the start of removing a reason to be in a large coalition. If you can't get way over there to help in a reasonable time, why be part of the organization.

To be honest, I think you underestimate CCP's desire the remove the need for large coalitions. If this doesn't do the trick they will make it even harder to move combat forces.


What I do hope they implement in the Sov changes is the "Treaties" idea from several years ago. That and these movement changes can go a long way to Null a lot friendlier to smaller organizations.


I disagree. I may make coalitions, have more supplies spread out. Sure small alliances part of a big coalition may have to disband and join the larger alliance because they no longer have the manpower to provide logistics.

It appears CCP thinks that null sec can be totally isolated economically from high sec. That's not true, unless you have a HUGE player base in your alliance.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#1435 - 2014-10-17 18:25:02 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
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 ;)


Didn't get to hear her presentation, but, fair enough, even though that would open up a person, or group of persons to simply destroying their system's gates so they could be left alone and then relying on WH for travel in and out of their system, effectively turning K-space into W-space, and I think that CCP will not allow that to happen in existing systems, but, meh.. they might...

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#1436 - 2014-10-17 18:30:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
mannyman wrote:
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!




Not to burst your bubble, but maximum, that comes to $45.00 US a month, less if you buy 3 months at a time.

literally, nothing more than a drop in the bucket my friend, that's all....

And further, since Plex (with only a very few exceptions) are all generated from RL cash, then by plexing an account, you are in fact supporting CCP receiving a good chunk of real dollars from many more folks than just you.

o/
Celly Smunt

E: forgot to add that PLEX gives CCP more than the $14.95 USD that a month's worth of time costs when you purchase it directly.. for example $34.95 (the cost of a plex activation code) divided by 2 = $17.475 per PLEX

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1437 - 2014-10-17 18:33:01 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
Tikitina wrote:
Byson1 wrote:
It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.

I believe this is what CCP is going for.

If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?



It will be the start of removing a reason to be in a large coalition. If you can't get way over there to help in a reasonable time, why be part of the organization.

To be honest, I think you underestimate CCP's desire the remove the need for large coalitions. If this doesn't do the trick they will make it even harder to move combat forces.


What I do hope they implement in the Sov changes is the "Treaties" idea from several years ago. That and these movement changes can go a long way to Null a lot friendlier to smaller organizations.


I disagree. I may make coalitions, have more supplies spread out. Sure small alliances part of a big coalition may have to disband and join the larger alliance because they no longer have the manpower to provide logistics.

It appears CCP thinks that null sec can be totally isolated economically from high sec. That's not true, unless you have a HUGE player base in your alliance.


Coalitions have a huge player base - and still they never felt the need to isolate themselves from the empire or create a local industry. You describe the obvious problem - instead of being assimilated into one alliance and thus being able to be independent in their own space we have a cluster of landlords and renters who clink to their own alliance name for whatever reason. These renters dont own space, dont own any important moons, but often deliver the largest active population in their respective areas. The changes will actively enable them to rethink their process - do they want to stay renter(formerly known as pets) or take up arms and get rid of the oppressors (pun intended).

We as a player base get more options than we have right now while some options get taken away - thats how it has always been with changes so far.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1438 - 2014-10-17 18:43:29 UTC
Dwissi wrote:


Coalitions have a huge player base - and still they never felt the need to isolate themselves from the empire or create a local industry.


That would be because it was impossible to do for over a decade.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1439 - 2014-10-17 18:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
baltec1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:


Coalitions have a huge player base - and still they never felt the need to isolate themselves from the empire or create a local industry.


That would be because it was impossible to do for over a decade.

You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement


@ Celly S I actually stand corrected - it wasnt Seagull but CCP Scarpia using the words - its minutes 24:00 - 25:00 of this

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1440 - 2014-10-17 18:50:19 UTC
Dwissi wrote:

You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement




Just adding clarity. Far too many people have no idea industry was impossible to do in null until just a few months ago.