These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1641 - 2014-10-21 15:51:29 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.

Blackops always have, and always will be a bigger threat to rorquals than a logged out gang of dreads/carriers ever will be.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1642 - 2014-10-21 15:51:58 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:

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


A Rapier or Huginn with a faction web and a bit of practice makes it a lot easier.

Of course, you needed to be in the same Corp when you start out in HiSec.
Once you were in Null, anyone could web them once the Freighter got a bit of speed going during align.


Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1643 - 2014-10-21 15:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
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


Well - come up with proper argument against an idea and why its better. My kids tend to say something is bad - and they dont get away with just that. I assume you are an adult - so you can defnitly do better than that.

P.S: Snipping half of the context is a bad attitude by the way

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1644 - 2014-10-21 15:54:25 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
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.



Login traps are dishonorable, therefore you are dishonorable.

Would you really steath seed a carrier/dread combo into a system to kill 1 rorq?
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1645 - 2014-10-21 15:55:23 UTC
Serendipity Lost 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.



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)

No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1646 - 2014-10-21 15:57:25 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Serendipity Lost 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.



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)

No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes.


Cool, so we agree. Let's throw away those comfy womfy security blankets and get down to business.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1647 - 2014-10-21 16:06:42 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Serendipity Lost 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.



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)

No, people actually being willing AND able to defend the POS after the timer's up is what's helped supercaps proliferate. It doesn't take that long to incap or kill a POS with sufficient amounts of subcaps, caps aren't necessary to actually take down POSes.


Cool, so we agree. Let's throw away those comfy womfy security blankets and get down to business.

Agree on what? That cyno jammers need to be removed so supers can be killed?

You're apparently reading something into my post which I did not put there. I just said that supers can (and are) often coathangered without the use of caps, so removing cynojammers is not required to "let supers be coathangered". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can take the idea of removing cynojammers and stuff it, because it still has a strategic value in forcing caps to either go through gates to get to where they're going, or wait for the subcap fleet to take down the jammer. Or find a way around.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1648 - 2014-10-21 16:14:53 UTC
kneecap force projection
kneecap SOV structure hitpoints
kneecap cyno jammers
kneecap passive isk

It's all on the napkin. I'm not sure if you guys don't know or don't believe.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1649 - 2014-10-21 16:21:54 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
kneecap force projection
kneecap SOV structure hitpoints
kneecap cyno jammers
kneecap passive isk

It's all on the napkin. I'm not sure if you guys don't know or don't believe.


Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1650 - 2014-10-21 16:25:06 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
kneecap force projection
kneecap SOV structure hitpoints
kneecap cyno jammers
kneecap passive isk

It's all on the napkin. I'm not sure if you guys don't know or don't believe.


Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks.

It probably won't shrink much until the sov system is changed for the better.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1651 - 2014-10-21 16:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jean Luc Lemmont
Tikitina wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:

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


A Rapier or Huginn with a faction web and a bit of practice makes it a lot easier.

Of course, you needed to be in the same Corp when you start out in HiSec.
Once you were in Null, anyone could web them once the Freighter got a bit of speed going during align.




I know, and if the freighter pilot has nomads, your rapier can have them off the line almost from the moment they become targetable. That still doesn't make escorting a freighter interesting to me. Keywords in italics. Being able to do it faster simply makes it less of a chore, not more enjoyable. You're still shovelling the snow - all that's changed is how much snow there is.

But again, that's my opinion. As I said before, other people may find it enjoyable as a group activity, in the same way that people find mining with a bunch of drunk bros to be a good time. It's not the activity in and of itself that is enjoyable, it's the people that make it enjoyable. Personally, I like mining, if I'm with the right group. We tell jokes, swap stories, discuss world events, swap bad fukung links, etc. That doesn't make mining not suck. It just makes you not notice the suck because you're engaged with other people.

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.

Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#1652 - 2014-10-21 16:30:53 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:


Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks.

It probably won't shrink much until the sov system is changed for the better.


While I am sincerely hoping you are wrong (no offense to your space tribe, you did what you had to do to protect yourselves), I'm suspecting you're right. We probably won't see much change in the "heartland" areas of the major coalitions until the sov system becomes less "grind off billions of EHP, wait seven days, grind off more billions of EHP, rinse repeat.

I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll see some movement in the far outlying areas where renters live if their lords and masters decide it's too much damned trouble to recover a system for a paltry billion or three ISK a month. But maybe I'm dreaming. We'll see I suppose.

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.

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1653 - 2014-10-21 16:38:23 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:


Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks.

It probably won't shrink much until the sov system is changed for the better.


While I am sincerely hoping you are wrong (no offense to your space tribe, you did what you had to do to protect yourselves), I'm suspecting you're right. We probably won't see much change in the "heartland" areas of the major coalitions until the sov system becomes less "grind off billions of EHP, wait seven days, grind off more billions of EHP, rinse repeat.

I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll see some movement in the far outlying areas where renters live if their lords and masters decide it's too much damned trouble to recover a system for a paltry billion or three ISK a month. But maybe I'm dreaming. We'll see I suppose.

They're apparently reducing the EHP required to grind down a system, so we'll see some of the outlier systems change hands a bit easier, but we're still left with the problem of being able to reset all progress made by the defender winning a single fight, whereas the attacker must win all of them.

So I do expect there to be some changes, just not as dramatic as what'll happen once the sov system hits. At least I hope that's how it'll play out, because if I ever do go to fanfest, then either I'll owe greyscale a beer (if the jump changes etc cause more political ruckus than the sov system) or he'll owe me a beer (if the sov system creates more political ruckus than the jump changes etc).
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1654 - 2014-10-21 16:52:28 UTC
That's still pretty one-sided thinking, which agreed does define goons combat history in a nutshell (ie piling all into just one system). Yes, you can definitely 'reset all progress' at one objective. Let's see how well it goes when you have more than one objective on the line at once. It will be much harder to reset that. That is the goal here....break apart your one big blob and either force you to stop depending on your caps and supers and start relying on subcaps, or force you to devide your forces, which reduces your combat effectiveness considerably given your combat history.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1655 - 2014-10-21 17:03:51 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Tikitina wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:

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


A Rapier or Huginn with a faction web and a bit of practice makes it a lot easier.

Of course, you needed to be in the same Corp when you start out in HiSec.
Once you were in Null, anyone could web them once the Freighter got a bit of speed going during align.




I know, and if the freighter pilot has nomads, your rapier can have them off the line almost from the moment they become targetable. That still doesn't make escorting a freighter interesting to me. Keywords in italics. Being able to do it faster simply makes it less of a chore, not more enjoyable. You're still shovelling the snow - all that's changed is how much snow there is.

But again, that's my opinion. As I said before, other people may find it enjoyable as a group activity, in the same way that people find mining with a bunch of drunk bros to be a good time. It's not the activity in and of itself that is enjoyable, it's the people that make it enjoyable. Personally, I like mining, if I'm with the right group. We tell jokes, swap stories, discuss world events, swap bad fukung links, etc. That doesn't make mining not suck. It just makes you not notice the suck because you're engaged with other people.


I think a lot of folks are looking forward to ganking the crap out of freighters going forward. I know you won't necessarily enjoy that, but a lot of other folks will. To be fair, you JF guys had a pretty good risk free run... so you have that to look back on.

The real dilemma in 2 years will be having to shoot all the loots you can't possibly hold. Maybe blops cyno a bunch of cloaky haulers. Who knows.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1656 - 2014-10-21 17:06:50 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:


Hopefully its denial. Many of us are hoping the blue donut will actually put up a bit of a fight before it shrinks.

It probably won't shrink much until the sov system is changed for the better.


While I am sincerely hoping you are wrong (no offense to your space tribe, you did what you had to do to protect yourselves), I'm suspecting you're right. We probably won't see much change in the "heartland" areas of the major coalitions until the sov system becomes less "grind off billions of EHP, wait seven days, grind off more billions of EHP, rinse repeat.

I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll see some movement in the far outlying areas where renters live if their lords and masters decide it's too much damned trouble to recover a system for a paltry billion or three ISK a month. But maybe I'm dreaming. We'll see I suppose.

They're apparently reducing the EHP required to grind down a system, so we'll see some of the outlier systems change hands a bit easier, but we're still left with the problem of being able to reset all progress made by the defender winning a single fight, whereas the attacker must win all of them.

So I do expect there to be some changes, just not as dramatic as what'll happen once the sov system hits. At least I hope that's how it'll play out, because if I ever do go to fanfest, then either I'll owe greyscale a beer (if the jump changes etc cause more political ruckus than the sov system) or he'll owe me a beer (if the sov system creates more political ruckus than the jump changes etc).


I think the associated timercide will amplify the HP reductions. They have the most juvenile names for stuff sometimes.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1657 - 2014-10-21 17:08:11 UTC
Querns wrote:
So I'd like to bring up a slightly different point -- something that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been mentioned before: missing lowsec gate connections. This primarily concerns combat capitals; those limited to five lightyears' range.

The goal of the long distance travel changes is to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping for capital ships. However, this is predicated on the availability of corridors for capital ships to travel in the first place. While most of lowsec is reasonably interconnected, there exist three exceptions to this rule.

Namely, sections of lowsec in southern Aridia/Khanid, Tash-Murkon, and Derelik are completely isolated from the rest of lowsec and REQUIRE at least one jump to traverse. The inaccessibility of these regions via lowsec-gate-only corridor range from relatively easy to overcome (Aridia's inaccessibility is the fault of a single highsec island system, Sazilid) to punishing (all traffic to lowsec Tash-Murkon must jump in and out a single system, Mai.)

These regions represent a very important strategic staging location for assaulting the regions of Delve, Querious, and Providence with the capital ships needed to wage modern warfare. I'm not trying to suggest that ALL systems in lowsec be interconnected with each other, but having large pockets of strategically crucial lowsec be inaccessible outside of jumping does not feel right to me.

With this in mind, my question becomes does CCP consider large sections of inaccessible lowsec an issue? If so, I'd be happy to suggest some fixes to the problem.


Interesting. Not sure whether or not I'd agree that it's necessarily a *problem*, but it's certainly something to think about. Thanks :)

Arronicus wrote:
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?




Speaking as a rorqual pilot (with 11 hulk miners, 1 of which can give max rorq boosts, but 2 have cap industrial ships 5);

I think the change you should make depends on where you, CCP, really want the rorqual to be, in the longer run.
Is it your intent to have them in the belt, or boosting from inside of a pos?

If the rorqual is going to be boosting from a pos, the drone bonus is pointless. You could take away most of the bandwidth and drone bay away even if you wanted to.

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.

To that end, considering that I am greatly hopeful that you plan to make the rorqual actually worth using in the belts (because currently, it is not by a long shot, the long industrial cycle time being the biggest complication, but uselessness of capital tractor beams when working with a large group of miners is also up there), and so:

I hope that you will leave the drone bonus on the rorqual, even if it means keeping it at 5ly.


It definitely needs a full overhaul at some point, that's on our to-do list. If you're happy to keep the drones for now, that's a useful data point.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1658 - 2014-10-21 17:08:36 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Login traps are dishonorable, therefore you are dishonorable.

Would you really steath seed a carrier/dread combo into a system to kill 1 rorq?

Yes. Because I can.
And honor, in my EVE?! God forbid.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1659 - 2014-10-21 17:09:30 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Byson1 wrote:


I stand by what I say. If your goal is to increase the number of small engagements then you have to increase the number of people who actually live in null. The only way to do that is by letting industry work. The only reason there are not more people in null now is because it reflects the current situation industry is in.

Why are there hundreds, thousands even in Jita? for the lvl 4 missions? No its because of industry. You let industry work let us be able to move goods to and from the systems we want to live in. The level we are able to do that will be reflected by how many people live in null. I know there are other factors, but industry is the foundation. Despite what other people realize.

I don't think it means what they think it means


You understand we still have more then a year of planed changes to null right how about you wait till you see what they are going to do before you go on a rant next time


Yeah they said they would make it up to us for the lost time researching prints too.. I can rant when I want to.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1660 - 2014-10-21 17:13:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
It definitely needs a full overhaul at some point, that's on our to-do list. If you're happy to keep the drones for now, that's a useful data point.

He said he wants drones IF you get Rorqual viable in the belt.
Not something I can imagine.