These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1561 - 2014-10-20 09:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
Ren Keratta wrote:
Saisin wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Vincent Athena wrote:

Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by logging into the right one on the right account.
Nerfing alts, or multiple accounts, will not happen.
....


Generally speaking, yes, I think we would prefer to limit that as well if it were possible without severely mangling other big-picture goals. There's no obvious way to do so that I can see, though.



I do not believe you have much to do to be able to significantly curve the use of alts for caps operations...

With the upcoming fatigue rules, just have the jump fatigue NOT wear away when the account is not paid for, and automatically give some amount of jump fatigue to any character in an account that has just been created or reactivated.

Newbie will not care having jump fatigue, as it will wear out before they are able to use a ship for which it matters.

And large coalitions with a ton of isk and plexes, that can fund these kind of alt teleporting will just not be able to use those at will, creating an isk sink if they want to keep their alts paid for all the time.


+1 for this!!!!!



So jump fatigue per account, not character.

Hmm. I'm not sure. That might affect a cap pilot and a subcap pilot doing blackops on the same account when trying to do two different things.

I'd rather have ship and pilot fatigue timers.
Daneau
Perkone
Caldari State
#1562 - 2014-10-20 10:41:21 UTC
Saisin wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Vincent Athena wrote:

Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by logging into the right one on the right account.
Nerfing alts, or multiple accounts, will not happen.
....


Generally speaking, yes, I think we would prefer to limit that as well if it were possible without severely mangling other big-picture goals. There's no obvious way to do so that I can see, though.



I do not believe you have much to do to be able to significantly curve the use of alts for caps operations...

With the upcoming fatigue rules, just have the jump fatigue NOT wear away when the account is not paid for, and automatically give some amount of jump fatigue to any character in an account that has just been created or reactivated.

Newbie will not care having jump fatigue, as it will wear out before they are able to use a ship for which it matters.

And large coalitions with a ton of isk and plexes, that can fund these kind of alt teleporting will just not be able to use those at will, creating an isk sink if they want to keep their alts paid for all the time.


Plexing is not an isk sink, it neither creates nor removes isk from the game, merely moves it from one player to another
so while alliances may well be able to plex a horde of alts it removes 0 isk from the game, in fact the whole procedure
can be seen as an isk faucet instead since those 800M or so(at current price levels) are 800M that potentially would not
have been aquired otherwise. On alliance level probably not so much so though, but on a more personal level definitely
possible that someone chunrs up the isk grinder a notch to gain the extra plex
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1563 - 2014-10-20 13:22:06 UTC
Turrann Dallocort wrote:
Mr Greyscale,
Can we please take some time now to talk about some changes to the Rorq? I would be glad to change out some of my drone for the ability to go 10ly. This is far more important to me than drones at this moment, until you all redo the rorq completely.


Yup, absolutely we can talk about it :) This proposal doesn't seem terrible to me, does anyone else have an opinion or supporting arguments?

Celly S wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Yup, nothing's final yet, and that's one of the things where there's clearly good arguments on both sides and we're happy to reconsider.






In case you've not seen my comment on this, I think i reflect the feeling of many folks that with Rorquals sitting in POS bubbles for boosts, the drone bonuses are pretty irrelevant, and to be honest, I would appreciate the ability to jump to other mining systems much more than I would the ability to launch a little stronger drones out since "if" I'm ever caught in a position to have to defend myself with drones, I will likely be going to lose the ship anyway, so again, I'm not seeing the drone bonuses as being more important than range for that ship's primary use, however, should the proliferation of the Battle-Rorq happen, the lack of the drone bonuses might actually help curb that type use, or even a restriction against mounting drone damage mods to the ship.

o/

Thanks for your time Sir.
Celly Smunt



(Like this one!)


Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Black ops are working in a generally OK manner on TQ right now, and we want to minimize harm to their use with these changes.]


now i can accept that you are putting the jump timer on them when they jump but do not put it on just for bridging with the bridge reduction + the hauler reduction it was going to be possible to keep doing cov ops mining but if the Bridger gets exhausted just by opening up his bridge this will not work for an op to be profitable you will needing to be mining fast enough to fill a blockade runner far faster then 22 min(the current time it takes to cool down fully from opening a bridge)

How can my body be fatigued from jumping if i don't even jump.


the prospect added a whole new way to mine and play the game please don't make it collateral less then a year after it was introduced.

its not like its going to be exploited if you can just keep opening bridges with a BLOPS either the recons/sbs will have to slow boat back or the blops will have to jump to them and gain fatigue.


another problem with this is using the blops to bridge for combat YOU CAN"T BE A PART OF MOST FIGHTS!!!! if you bridge even with 0 fatigue your jump timer is over 60 seconds (not sure if sisi has the 50%reduction yet if not then stillover 30) this means that you can't jump in till after the cyno has closed and most of the time you can't reopen one till the fight is over. Now i know most times the bridge blops doesn't jump into the fight anyway but when your corp only has 1 some times you need to. another problem is for each jump your bridging blops gains 2x more fatigue over the rest of the fleet (one for opening a bridge another for jumping) causing you to build it faster limiting the operations of a corp based on the timer of one pilot

I can see why titans may need this but its going to hit small cov ops corps that don't have many bridge pilots


There's a bug on SiSi currently where the person opening the bridge gets fatigue for people going through it. This will be fixed before release :)

[quote=Iam Widdershins]Greyscale, you are knocking it out of the park with these responses. These two posts in particular made me very happy.

More feedback, though: I'll admit that I don't really like how it can take up to 30 whole days to let your fatigue decay back to 1.0. The desire to keep the constant speed to a certain LY/min is good, and having a maximum cooldown of around 3 days is fine, but adding a decay factor is not inimical to either of these.

I did a bunch of research on this and made a pretty big spreadsheet to look at tweaking the numbers.

By changing the MAXIMUM fatigue possible to 5760 (4 days instead of 3) and adding a per-minute-per-fatigue decay of 0.00008, the system is almost identical:

* A minor advantage to the player, jumping as far as you can as early as you can gets you to maximum cooldown only 15-20 minutes faster, over the course of about 24 hours (that is, the last jump is that much earlier)
* As a disadvantage to the player, the worst cooldown you can get after a jump is a bit longer, but if you jump whenever possible you should still see approximately the same cooldowns (both right around 2d 17h) and very long cooldowns will be rare and actually hard to achieve.**

With these key points being essentially the same, it takes 14 days, 23 hours, and 2 minutes to decay to minimum fatigue instead of an entire subscription month of 30 days. This means that the player can jump about like a panicked rabbit TWICE a month instead of once, and the consequences for doing so won't be quite so bad -- but tactically, neither is particularly relevant.

Higher or lower decay factors primarily achieve different maximum fatigue decay times. Generally speaking, about 1 day is knocked off for every 0.00001 in the decay factor, and the other factors discussed (time to max out your fatigue and average panic-move cooldown) do not change significantly until the time for your fatigue to decay is rather less than 2 weeks.

Yes, it seems like a slightly more complicated system. However, it should be fairly easy to implement and should be to players'...
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1564 - 2014-10-20 13:26:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Turrann Dallocort wrote:
Mr Greyscale,
Can we please take some time now to talk about some changes to the Rorq? I would be glad to change out some of my drone for the ability to go 10ly. This is far more important to me than drones at this moment, until you all redo the rorq completely.


Yup, absolutely we can talk about it :) This proposal doesn't seem terrible to me, does anyone else have an opinion or supporting arguments?

I'd just ask what the reasoning behind the drone bonus would be for the rorqual, since I can't really see how it fits in with the intended role for the rorqual. Technically I could ask why it has drones at all, but as some light defence against rats perhaps? vOv
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1565 - 2014-10-20 13:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Makari Aeron
CCP Greyscale wrote:


--snip about Rorq--


I agree, the drone bonus was nice back before yall changed Mining Anomalies to be always visible. Now using a Rorq in a belt is suicidal at best.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

--snip about Blops--


Personally, I feel Blops are too powerful as is. There is no way to counter a Blops drop except to not be there in the first place or have way more people ready to counter drop. By increasing the Blops range, I strongly believe we need a way to stop the covert cyno such as buffing the disposable cynojammers to block Blops as well. Will this stop the drops? No. It will simply make the hotdroppers who literally "push button get bacon" for their kills every day to work a bit harder. Honestly, I've felt Blops became too powerful after their original range buff to 7.86LY up from 4.5LY.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

--snip about Jump Fatigue--


I know you admitted to allowing workarounds to your Jump Fatigue, but I still wish this Fatigue would be tied to the ships (and make the ships un-repackable during the cooldown timer like Audit Log Containers) as well as the players. This would eliminate the holding alt spam that may ensue.

EDIT:
@Lord TGR: it's a relic from the days of hidden mining belts where you could pull in ore cans and compress in the belts.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1566 - 2014-10-20 13:32:08 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


There's a bug on SiSi currently where the person opening the bridge gets fatigue for people going through it. This will be fixed before release :)




that's great to hear roams are still going to be a great deal shorter (1-4 drops) but at least someone doesn't have to double is timer for everyone else
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1567 - 2014-10-20 13:37:18 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Black Ops fatigue is a value we're happy to tune, within a reasonable range. Make a case for a number and we'll listen :)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Procure or create an eye-wateringly eloquent treatise on the innate beauty and excellence of the number 0.05


even as high as .3 or .25 would probably work
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1568 - 2014-10-20 13:57:03 UTC
I have an opinion, why does the rorqual even have all this stuff? I thought it was supposed to do mining links and ore compression.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1569 - 2014-10-20 13:58:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Makari Aeron wrote:
@Lord TGR: it's a relic from the days of hidden mining belts where you could pull in ore cans and compress in the belts.

Ah, right. Sounds like it's time for a removal or, at the very least, a revisit, then.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1570 - 2014-10-20 14:02:34 UTC
Concerning the 10LY for the rorq, the JF concession and any black ops leniency. My only concerns with these 3 are that none of them will become force projection taxis that allow pilots to 'teleport' or close to teleport across eve to pre staged supers.

I'll give you my thoughts on 10LY for the rorq. It's purpose is to supplement mining fleets. I can't recall anyone ever needing mining boosts/compression or anything else 10LY away in a big hurry. Mining by definition is slow and in one place. I'm suspect to any mining "needs" that "require" a 10LY jump range.

CCP gryscale - If you intend to give the rorq a break on jump range (let it jump out to 10LY) I would like to see an actual mining reason for the need.

I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1571 - 2014-10-20 14:19:09 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Concerning the 10LY for the rorq, the JF concession and any black ops leniency. My only concerns with these 3 are that none of them will become force projection taxis that allow pilots to 'teleport' or close to teleport across eve to pre staged supers.

I'll give you my thoughts on 10LY for the rorq. It's purpose is to supplement mining fleets. I can't recall anyone ever needing mining boosts/compression or anything else 10LY away in a big hurry. Mining by definition is slow and in one place. I'm suspect to any mining "needs" that "require" a 10LY jump range.

CCP gryscale - If you intend to give the rorq a break on jump range (let it jump out to 10LY) I would like to see an actual mining reason for the need.

I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.


yes.. the nerf is starting too get a little too diluted .. 10LY is unjustified on any ship

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1572 - 2014-10-20 14:19:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Concerning the 10LY for the rorq, the JF concession and any black ops leniency. My only concerns with these 3 are that none of them will become force projection taxis that allow pilots to 'teleport' or close to teleport across eve to pre staged supers.

I'll give you my thoughts on 10LY for the rorq. It's purpose is to supplement mining fleets. I can't recall anyone ever needing mining boosts/compression or anything else 10LY away in a big hurry. Mining by definition is slow and in one place. I'm suspect to any mining "needs" that "require" a 10LY jump range.

CCP gryscale - If you intend to give the rorq a break on jump range (let it jump out to 10LY) I would like to see an actual mining reason for the need.

I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.


we use this a lot we are a HS corp that likes to mine out in null the rorq can jump out their with barges in its maint hanger and then pilots can then be bridged to it in prospects and swap to the barges to mine.

10ly isn't needed but 5 makes options very limited and the fewer options the harder it is to do as you start to get camped out

EDIT: I suppose when looking at what to give breaks to the best thing to look at is "what are the changes meant to do""is this ship part of the problem"and"will making this ship exempt from it be inline with making sure the goal is best/not hindered"
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1573 - 2014-10-20 14:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.

Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler.
My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care.

E: I also dont think T1 industrials need fatigue bonuses. Leave it for T2 ships only.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1574 - 2014-10-20 14:28:22 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Concerning the 10LY for the rorq, the JF concession and any black ops leniency. My only concerns with these 3 are that none of them will become force projection taxis that allow pilots to 'teleport' or close to teleport across eve to pre staged supers.

I'll give you my thoughts on 10LY for the rorq. It's purpose is to supplement mining fleets. I can't recall anyone ever needing mining boosts/compression or anything else 10LY away in a big hurry. Mining by definition is slow and in one place. I'm suspect to any mining "needs" that "require" a 10LY jump range.

CCP gryscale - If you intend to give the rorq a break on jump range (let it jump out to 10LY) I would like to see an actual mining reason for the need.

I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.


we use this a lot we are a HS corp that likes to mine out in null the rorq can jump out their with barges in its maint hanger and then pilots can then be bridged to it in prospects and swap to the barges to mine.

10ly isn't needed but 5 makes options very limited and the fewer options the harder it is to do as you start to get camped out


I hear what you are saying, but to be fair - I don't think there are a lot of folks doing what you describe. Looking at the big picture (sorry for this) but I would be for ruining your way of mining to safeguard the intent of the long distance travel objectives. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few sort of thing.

There are A LOT of folks pushing for 10LY and there are NOT a lot of folks jumping 9LY from HS to ninja fleet mine in null. I sense other motives. I think it's fair for me to point that mining doesn't magically 'get better' beyond the 5LY barrier.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1575 - 2014-10-20 14:31:20 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.

Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler.
My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care.

E: I also dont think T1 industrials need fatigue bonuses. Leave it for T2 ships only.


But thats what the Rorq was originally intended to be - a mining support vessel. I would rather see hidden belts coming back then further nerfs to it. The Rrorq was and is basically the only high level ship left for a miner to skill up to. Degrading /changing it into yet another hauler/combat vessel would just be wrong.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1576 - 2014-10-20 14:37:04 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.

Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler.
My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care.



Buying into the reasons for the changes to long distance transportation... if I got to vote (which I don't) I would vote NO on 10LY.

To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically. I think wonking up on JF would go a long way to limiting the massive blob stuff. It's much more difficult to field a 300 ship oracal fleet every day if it takes 4 days to get replacement ships. You would have to plan ahead. I don't see instant logistics any different than instang supers. Both support the current staleness - maybe JF do more so (based on the lack of meaningful combat).

BLOPS I was initially for giving them a break, but I fear the BLOPS taxi service aspect as a work around to the fatigue stuff, so I changed back to no breaks for them either.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1577 - 2014-10-20 14:40:07 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.

Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler.
My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care.



Buying into the reasons for the changes to long distance transportation... if I got to vote (which I don't) I would vote NO on 10LY.

To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically. I think wonking up on JF would go a long way to limiting the massive blob stuff. It's much more difficult to field a 300 ship oracal fleet every day if it takes 4 days to get replacement ships. You would have to plan ahead. I don't see instant logistics any different than instang supers. Both support the current staleness - maybe JF do more so (based on the lack of meaningful combat).

BLOPS I was initially for giving them a break, but I fear the BLOPS taxi service aspect as a work around to the fatigue stuff, so I changed back to no breaks for them either.


i agree ... black ops need other buffs.. like HP, combat bonuses etc.. more combat related

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1578 - 2014-10-20 14:45:11 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
But thats what the Rorq was originally intended to be - a mining support vessel. I would rather see hidden belts coming back then further nerfs to it. The Rrorq was and is basically the only high level ship left for a miner to skill up to. Degrading /changing it into yet another hauler/combat vessel would just be wrong.

I'm not against any changes to mining, as it is indeed too dumb. But what CCP present to us now is not a mining revamp, they have some other unrelated goals in mind. So it's reasonable to keep status quo with Rorqual and mining in general for now. And it means they better keep the current roles, which are fulfilled by the Rorq. This roles include, as I mentioned above, POS service for example.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1579 - 2014-10-20 14:46:04 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic.

Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler.
My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care.



Buying into the reasons for the changes to long distance transportation... if I got to vote (which I don't) I would vote NO on 10LY.

To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically. I think wonking up on JF would go a long way to limiting the massive blob stuff. It's much more difficult to field a 300 ship oracal fleet every day if it takes 4 days to get replacement ships. You would have to plan ahead. I don't see instant logistics any different than instang supers. Both support the current staleness - maybe JF do more so (based on the lack of meaningful combat).

BLOPS I was initially for giving them a break, but I fear the BLOPS taxi service aspect as a work around to the fatigue stuff, so I changed back to no breaks for them either.


i agree ... black ops need other buffs.. like HP, combat bonuses etc.. more combat related


Heh, I'd give them all RR bonus to entice them out onto the front line instead of just being a jump portal. There are a lot of things other than jump range you can do to make BLOPs guys happy. Take some jump range, but give back something combat related.
Valterra Craven
#1580 - 2014-10-20 14:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Turrann Dallocort wrote:

Can we please take some time now to talk about some changes to the Rorq? I would be glad to change out some of my drone for the ability to go 10ly. This is far more important to me than drones at this moment, until you all redo the rorq completely.


Yup, absolutely we can talk about it :) This proposal doesn't seem terrible to me, does anyone else have an opinion or supporting arguments?




Well before I go into my post I'd just like to say that you did ask if ANYONE had an opinion...

Background: I was part of BoB in what I would refer to it as the Golden Years (Aka before Dice and Before the stupidity of the Great War) I was not a combat pilot, my sad sad killboard history is a good indicator of that. I was part of the industrial arm of BNC or BNC.E. I was responsible for the second to last part in our production chains. This meant I took all of the t2 materials from our moons and turned them into t2 comps we used to build t2 items. Our corp primarily based around PR (right next to nol-m9 because it was an NPC station and was also close to other NPC stations that had manufacturing lines. Our smallish corp had enough jobs to fill 3! Npc stations worth of factory slots 24/7 year round. Keep in mind this was before we had our first Titan (Still pissed ASCN managed to build the very first one) This was before Jump Bridges. This was before Fuel Blocks. This was before a host of a number of changes you guys have done to nullsec over the last 4-5 years. We did freighter convoys. Lots and Lots of Freighters conveys. Which reminds me, when we actually did have our first couple of titans I remember the first time we got to use the titan bridge to move freighters, holy **** was that cool. Hell at that time that was even before you nerfed carriers and we used those to supply ourselves with goods from empire. (I'm still bitter you guys removed that, especially given the fact that by todays standards its so inefficient to move things that way and really kills the whole sandbox feel of the game)

ANYWAY. I say all that because I truly and honestly feel that all of this industrial capitulation you guys are doing is utter horse ****. Think about all the advantages that 0.0 corps have today with their outposts, their anoms, their member bases and all that. Logistics ISN'T easy. It should NEVER be easy. I want you to think about this for a second. Say America wants to commit to a war across the globe where it has no assets. How does it get those massive A1 Abrams tanks across the globe quickly? Answer, it doesnt. (Yes I know about C5 air transports, but those can only carry one at a time and its not like America has a huge fleet of them to move a ton of tanks that way) No, the best way to do so is still be sea and it still takes a reasonably long time to get them deployed.

My point is that a big reason that 0.0 exists in the way it does today is because you've made the logistics side TOO easy. In fact the commentary on this done by the CSM rep CoreBloodBrothers is a very good point to this (I listened to the interview he gave with Bob's Corner). It shouldn't take one JF pilot a few minutes to jump goods to a whole region like that... Think about all the PVP that is potentially wasted becuase things like Freighter OPS using gates are a thing of the past now. Can you image the amount of loss that would happen when you loose 10-20 freighters full of goods?! In fact I seem to remember this actually happening a couple times before all this bridge foolishness was released. Honestly, you should just remove pos bridges completely while you are at it.

The whole point of 0.0 space is that its deep space and nothing is easy to do out there because the infrastructure doesn't really exist. But I still disagree with the premise that THIS change (referring to movement) is the change you should have started with. If people are complaining so much about density and the inability for industry to take root, you have one very simple thing to do to fix this. Release an outpost upgrade that brings a lvl 4 security agent to that outpost. Problem solved. All of a sudden a single system can go from supporting 1-12 players to a couple hundred.

The second quick fix you do if you fix the minerals in anoms to give them things they actually need. You guys are constantly tinkering with numbers in those things and honestly given the price of Zyd right now it feels like you have no idea what you are doing. You need to study this problem as a whole picture and really get a solid game plan based around math and economics instead of "game balance" because your current way of doing things isn't working.