These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Presidente Gallente
Best Kept Dunked
#1621 - 2014-10-21 13:04:29 UTC
I just realized that Blops will get a 50% jump fatigue bonus. Honestly. Blops is made for hit and run and not hit and stay afk for 30 mins. 15 mins max. would be a good timer. We are talking about a bonus between 50% and 90% (JF). Let's say 75%.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1622 - 2014-10-21 13:12:36 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Valterra Craven's post crystallized an idea for me.....

That logistics is just too easy - and that's why the design intent seems not to match what players then do (sandbox).

The timer and fatigue system does indeed seem to be inelegant and I can understand some players objections. What I don't quite understand is why this ended up being the change needed, when a relatively simple tweak (then with further support changes) might well accomplish the same - and a whole lot more.

Why not tweak jump fuel usage and fuel bay sizes so that Capitals have to refuel every 5(?) LY instead? No timers, no building measures of fatigue - just the need to refuel.

Fuel then has to accompany and or be pre-positioned. Make the Rorqual have a secondary 'refuelling station' role (where the Industrial Core does indeed generate a POS-like shield wherein refuelling takes place). JF and the Rorquals have bigger fuel bays. Other ships, could, have the ability to carry fuel as well.

Large assaults - more fuel.

If it works, then I'd seriously suggest that ALL ships end up using fuel (except capsules). It doesn't have to be the same fuel as jump fuel and could even be an isk-sink. Normal space flight uses a bit of fuel; afterburners and then MWDs yet more propgressively; and warping to gates costs some. All usage dependent on mass.

Real logistics is needed for fuel, ammo and maintenace/replacement. EVE only has a relatively small ammo usage and little maintenance and then some replacement. But fuel is the big driver....

(Author is ex-RL Military Logistics Officer) - also let Rorq's into High Sec with similar properties to JFs - and the on-grid within shields mining boosts; per my earlier post herein.


That's just... Yuck. It wouldn't solve the power teleportation problem - at the worst you'd just have to bring a JF along. It would just add a tedious step. Fuel for all ships traveling anywhere.... How does that add any fun to the game? Rorqs into HS.... and what give them 10LY so they can be the new JF out of Jita???


Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1623 - 2014-10-21 13:23:57 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already.

Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation.

"Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked."

It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1624 - 2014-10-21 13:31:53 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already.

Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation.

"Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked."

It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible.


Well - coming to think about it: Its actually a great idea to improve industry again. Think of all the possible fuel stops one can set up :D

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
#1625 - 2014-10-21 13:38:49 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already.

Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation.

"Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked."

It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible.


Well - coming to think about it: Its actually a great idea to improve industry again. Think of all the possible fuel stops one can set up :D

Since we're talking about fuel stops, then pilots gotta eat, might as well make those fuel stops serve hotdogs too.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1626 - 2014-10-21 13:47:35 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Tikitina wrote:

I was in several 3-5 freighter supply convoys 20-40 jump into null sec before Jump Freighters and it was some of the most nail biting pvp I've ever been in.


lets just mosey on over to the corp history

Quote:
CURRENT CORPORATION
Imperial Academy [IAC] from 2013.08.18 16:17 to this day


oh the person extolling the virtues of freighter ops has never been in anything but a npc corp, you say

what a shock



You must be new here. This is like my 8th forum alt since I started playing.

Some of us like our positions on the forums to not be related to our current in-game activities.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1627 - 2014-10-21 13:53:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.

One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.


Then they should post on their main.



Many of us don't care about the post with your main thing. Roll

What I say on the forums is separate to what I do in game, and it will always be that way.

You may think that since I don't post with my main what I say doesn't matter, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The ones who listen to what one says regardless of who they are and listen to what I saying, not who I am, are the ones I'm talking to.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1628 - 2014-10-21 14:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jean Luc Lemmont
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.

One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.


Then they should post on their main.


I sold my main - does that mean all the play time I had before I created this new main no longer applies?

Edit: I do get the post with your main thing - if someone is going toi opine on something, they should have some idea what they're talking about. But in a game like Eve where alts and character sales are a thing, it's little better than disagreeing with someone just because you don't like their hair. Discouting someone's ideas out of hand just because they're posting with an NPC alt is illogical.

Edit 2: Freighter ops are ******* dull. I can barely stand flying a freighter 10 jumps in highsec. much less 40 jumps through null. But that's my opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people may enjoy them. Some people are also bonkers. vOv

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.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1629 - 2014-10-21 14:03:37 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers.

Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this:
- find a system where Rorqual sits usually;
- sneak and logoff your capitals there;
- on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual;
- login and kill.
And drone bonuses will not help with that.
Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1630 - 2014-10-21 14:22:24 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers.

Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this:
- find a system where Rorqual sits usually;
- sneak and logoff your capitals there;
- on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual;
- login and kill.
And drone bonuses will not help with that.
Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.


Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.

They should move the mining link role to some sort of ORE command ship and give bonuses for how people actually use the ship.

Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1631 - 2014-10-21 14:23:14 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers.

Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this:
- find a system where Rorqual sits usually;
- sneak and logoff your capitals there;
- on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual;
- login and kill.
And drone bonuses will not help with that.
Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.


This. Cyno jammers need to lock out the gates.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1632 - 2014-10-21 14:33:00 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.

And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive.
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1633 - 2014-10-21 14:41:00 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.

And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive.

you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are

being "expensive" is not a balancing factor
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1634 - 2014-10-21 14:52:59 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.

And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive.


What you're saying is no longer a reality, what I'm saying still is. Why do smart people put CSAA's in dead end systems with jammers?
1) Stop caps from jumping in
2) Force your enemy through one gate

Jammers will still stop caps from jumping in and will now force them through gates with the sub caps.

A few years ago I was in a small alliance in the east. As it turns out Fleet Admiral Dabigredboat managed to RF a CSAA that was set up as described. Before the timer came out our alliance got our capitals in and bubbled the **** out of every gate they would have to go through to get to the system.

Jammers still force exactly that, except now it will be bringing caps through a ton of unfriendly potentially bubbled space, instead of just taking gates until you're 5LY out and jumping in. Strategic implications.

Will it act as a safety net so you can sit there without any fear of a lone capital attacking you ? No.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1635 - 2014-10-21 14:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote:
you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are

Guess it was Grayscale.
I understand the reasoning behind allowing capitals to jump through gates, but I suppose the consequences of this were seriously underestimated. Battles at cynojammer POS were always a real, meaningful sub-capital PVP (if we're talking about large scale conflicts). What we'll see in the future - is who can dogpile more capitals to the gate.
And black ops will become much safer for attackers, if they sneak a triage carrier and a dread into the target system and log them off.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#1636 - 2014-10-21 15:00:17 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.

One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.


Then they should post on their main.


Why?

Lordy Baltec, you do whinge just for the sake of whinging!

I use this character far, far more than my older one, so which one is my main?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

that anyone, anywhere, at any time enjoyed a freighter op is a more extraordinary claim than the existence of the lizard people
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1637 - 2014-10-21 15:14:26 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.

One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.


Then they should post on their main.


Why?

Lordy Baltec, you do whinge just for the sake of whinging!

I use this character far, far more than my older one, so which one is my main?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

that anyone, anywhere, at any time enjoyed a freighter op is a more extraordinary claim than the existence of the lizard people


Not so extraordinary if you think about it - probably not all the time but...

Whereas a combat op can be ugly with a bunch of drunks, especially flying expensive stuff, a freighter op would be far more ... tolerant of such. Probably a lot more jokes and the like with more of an "oh well, **** happens." if it goes south. That'd be drunk or sober by a lot of the pilots vs "how many ships did we lose?!?! "
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1638 - 2014-10-21 15:45:45 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers.

Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this:
- find a system where Rorqual sits usually;
- sneak and logoff your capitals there;
- on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual;
- login and kill.
And drone bonuses will not help with that.
Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.



I agree. Let's get rid of cyno jammers altogether. That way supers can be killed in the cradle. It will limit proliferation and provide defensive explosions. (Pro Hint: cyno jammers are one of the causes of super capital proliferation)
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1639 - 2014-10-21 15:46:58 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers.

Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this:
- find a system where Rorqual sits usually;
- sneak and logoff your capitals there;
- on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual;
- login and kill.
And drone bonuses will not help with that.
Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation.


Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant.

They should move the mining link role to some sort of ORE command ship and give bonuses for how people actually use the ship.



No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.

CCP introduces ship with role - ships keeps role and base bonuses and only fine adjustments are made if the values are completely off - but dont change the base of a ship to start with. That gives stability towards the sandbox gaming as skilling will never be useless - the ship will always have at least its base role. Thats how it should work at all times.

I took a break and find myself with a ton of Ospreys that used to be cool mining ships - they completely changed role in one update. Useless now because skills and ships dont comply to each other anymore. And there are tons of examples like that. Which is why i posted earlier that taking a step back and looking how many other professions and gamestyles have been demolished over the years because of making that kind of changes is a bad idea.

We as players get tools - we get freedom how we use them. If we are able to use them better or smarter than the intended use - fine. But changing them into the exact thing we use it for is simply wrong.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#1640 - 2014-10-21 15:49:00 UTC
Dwissi wrote:

No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.


more and more i find that if a post contains the word "sandbox" and does not have a ccp tag it nearly exclusively contains incredibly bad ideas about gameplay justified solely through a handwave at the word sandbox

it's remarkable, really