These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1661 - 2014-10-21 17:17:30 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
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.

Don't worry, you'll probably be seeing the occasional sov loss on our part after the jump change, but there's not going to be a dramatic change there from today's situation. You'll see a much bigger change from today's situation if CCP were to make a change like f.ex modifying today's sov system so you can only reset one stage of attacker progress (as opposed to all of it) per victory, or if the sov system was changed into something completely different (like an occupancy-based sov system).

That's when you'll see the political changes, as opposed to just some territory changes.

SFM Hobb3s wrote:
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.

Funny, the last I heard from the last few wars has been that we never depended on our caps and supers, and only used subcaps "because [we're] skurrd".
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1662 - 2014-10-21 17:22:30 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
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.


What would you imagine would make it viable? Near invincibility is where I think this is going. Other than invincible what would get you to put one in a belt?
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1663 - 2014-10-21 17:22:34 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
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.

Don't worry, you'll probably be seeing the occasional sov loss on our part after the jump change, but there's not going to be a dramatic change there from today's situation. You'll see a much bigger change from today's situation if CCP were to make a change like f.ex modifying today's sov system so you can only reset one stage of attacker progress (as opposed to all of it) per victory, or if the sov system was changed into something completely different (like an occupancy-based sov system).

That's when you'll see the political changes, as opposed to just some territory changes.

SFM Hobb3s wrote:
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.

Funny, the last I heard from the last few wars has been that we never depended on our caps and supers, and only used subcaps "because [we're] skurrd".


I wouldnt bet on that - since Eve Vegas we know how your region commander works. By knowing its strength we also know the weakness by now :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
#1664 - 2014-10-21 17:28:21 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think the associated timercide will amplify the HP reductions. They have the most juvenile names for stuff sometimes.

The what? I don't remember seeing anything about timers, just HP. Is there some info I've missed?
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1665 - 2014-10-21 17:37:06 UTC
The SOV changes making are just causing smaller alliances to leave null. I know you goons don't care.

If you want more fights, Null sec systems should be populated.

If you want null sec systems populated, then you must make industry viable.

If you make industry viable, people will be able to get the market items they want where they want it, they will live where they want to. People will fight to take it away from them.

If you create an environment where sov is burned down every other day, the only thing it will lead to is Larger Alliances, bigger coalitions, what ever it takes to make sov lasting.

The changes do nothing but perhaps get rid of small renters, who will join the larger alliances. Centralize powers, and leave large swaths of null empty. Empty null is not the environment in which there are lots of fun smaller engagements.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#1666 - 2014-10-21 17:44:43 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


As much as I disliked the rorq getting its range reduced, I agree that you guys need to let us know HOW you plan on the Rorqual being used. Our Investment has been getting knocked down more and more lately. It's now cheaper to run an Orca in a POS then a rorqual, while the Rorq provides max boost a POS makes it damn near useless. A POS can now compress.. all the skills we trained up to be Able to use Compression BPO's got burned as now anyone can compress. Now it's jump range is getting reduced. At this point, it's more affordable to run a ORCA then run a Rorqual. Drone bonus or long range jump.. I can take a minor reduction to max boosts fielding an Orca behind a Pos shield Vs the original benefits of training for compression and the rorqual itself.
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#1667 - 2014-10-21 18:03:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
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.


Except the relative isolation of some low sec system is a good thing. Low sec doesn't exist merely as a staging point for null blocs, or do you not realize other people have vastly different playstyles, such as living in low sec pockets? The game isn't balanced around capitals as the universal end-game; that much should be obvious from the jump changes. I wrote a blog post about this when the changes were announced because of how good of a change this is for low sec, making some pockets even more isolated: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2014/10/phoebe-madness.html

There are other problems in your post as well. Just because a general goal of the jump changes is to encourage capitals to take gates (as well as not travel so far, in general) does not mean that, therefore, low sec pockets should to be connected to others by gates. Your post contradicts itself when it says that such low sec pockets are "completely isolated" and "inaccessible"--but you can still jump there. What you mean to say is that some systems are now less convenient for you to use to as staging points for logistics into null, to which the appropriate response is, "Good."
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1668 - 2014-10-21 18:28:40 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
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.


Except the relative isolation of some low sec system is a good thing. Low sec doesn't exist merely as a staging point for null blocs, or do you not realize other people have vastly different playstyles, such as living in low sec pockets? The game isn't balanced around capitals as the universal end-game; that much should be obvious from the jump changes. I wrote a blog post about this when the changes were announced because of how good of a change this is for low sec, making some pockets even more isolated: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2014/10/phoebe-madness.html

There are other problems in your post as well. Just because a general goal of the jump changes is to encourage capitals to take gates (as well as not travel so far, in general) does not mean that, therefore, low sec pockets should to be connected to others by gates. Your post contradicts itself when it says that such low sec pockets are "completely isolated" and "inaccessible"--but you can still jump there. What you mean to say is that some systems are now less convenient for you to use to as staging points for logistics into null, to which the appropriate response is, "Good."

You're vastly over-evaluating the scope of my suggestions as well as the intended goal. I'm not trying to force interconnectivity between ALL lowsec systems -- just these three particular areas. These particular examples represent a huge swathe of systems; one could hardly consider them "pockets" nor representative of the sort of utopian small gang microclimates you're lionizing. Besides -- adding more potential for gate travel adds lots of content. Imagine a group of vulnerable dreadnoughts traveling through your stomping grounds, with you and yours at the ready to gank a straggler. People often complain about how dead lowsec is; how could additional traffic NOT be desired?

Additionally, use of the terms "inaccessible" was always predicated by "gate travel" throughout the entire post. Under no circumstances did I imply that they were also inaccessible by jumping. If they had been, I would have mentioned that as well -- however, during my research, I failed to find a single area that was unaccessible by jump OR gate, so I left that point out due to its gross inaccuracy.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1669 - 2014-10-21 18:38:15 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
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.


Except the relative isolation of some low sec system is a good thing. Low sec doesn't exist merely as a staging point for null blocs, or do you not realize other people have vastly different playstyles, such as living in low sec pockets? The game isn't balanced around capitals as the universal end-game; that much should be obvious from the jump changes. I wrote a blog post about this when the changes were announced because of how good of a change this is for low sec, making some pockets even more isolated: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2014/10/phoebe-madness.html

There are other problems in your post as well. Just because a general goal of the jump changes is to encourage capitals to take gates (as well as not travel so far, in general) does not mean that, therefore, low sec pockets should to be connected to others by gates. Your post contradicts itself when it says that such low sec pockets are "completely isolated" and "inaccessible"--but you can still jump there. What you mean to say is that some systems are now less convenient for you to use to as staging points for logistics into null, to which the appropriate response is, "Good."

You're vastly over-evaluating the scope of my suggestions as well as the intended goal. I'm not trying to force interconnectivity between ALL lowsec systems -- just these three particular areas. These particular examples represent a huge swathe of systems; one could hardly consider them "pockets" nor representative of the sort of utopian small gang microclimates you're lionizing. Besides -- adding more potential for gate travel adds lots of content. Imagine a group of vulnerable dreadnoughts traveling through your stomping grounds, with you and yours at the ready to gank a straggler. People often complain about how dead lowsec is; how could additional traffic NOT be desired?

Additionally, use of the terms "inaccessible" was always predicated by "gate travel" throughout the entire post. Under no circumstances did I imply that they were also inaccessible by jumping. If they had been, I would have mentioned that as well -- however, during my research, I failed to find a single area that was unaccessible by jump OR gate, so I left that point out due to its gross inaccuracy.


I had as well answered to that part - but i didnt quote you so you might have missed more arguments against your suggestion - so i repeat them here:
Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.

By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts become obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1670 - 2014-10-21 19:01:29 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
I had as well answered to that part - but i didnt quote you so you might have missed more arguments against your suggestion - so i repeat them here:
Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.

By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts become obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want.

The argument about diversity like this is very romantic, but it falls flat due to the fact that it doesn't actually exist, today.

Right now, the current range of capital ships is such that no part of lowsec actually meets these requirements. If I and my closest one thousand friends wanted to take a weekend trip to an isolated lowsec pocket, move in, and put cars up on cinder blocks, it'd be trivial for us to do so. (This is not a threat; the vagaries of the current political climate make this particularly infeasible anyways as we have a multi-front war that we are currently fighting. Just take it as an example of how things are today. This also neatly discounts the "conflict becomes obsolete" argument.) The diversity you speak of is being manufactured, from whole cloth, by the jump range reduction and the introduction of fatigue. As such, this future diversity is not yet set in stone. If this proto-diversity was sacrosanct, then we wouldn't have seen the easing of the jump freighter range from five lightyears to ten lightyears. I was particularly saddened by this revelation, having spent a significant amount of time optimizing for it and finding ways to use it to my advantage. (But I digress.)

I find it difficult to take seriously an argument that denounces the change on the grounds of a vignette that, by the very physical reality of how the game works, cannot possibly have taken place, as well as a vignette that has already been encroached upon once by revisions to the proposed changes in question.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1671 - 2014-10-21 19:08:58 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
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.


fozzie said the intention was too get them in belts at some point .. so drones/tankiness is a must if this is going to be the intention .. unless you have changed your minds on this

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
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1672 - 2014-10-21 19:10:20 UTC
Querns wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
I had as well answered to that part - but i didnt quote you so you might have missed more arguments against your suggestion - so i repeat them here:
Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.

By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts become obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want.

The argument about diversity like this is very romantic, but it falls flat due to the fact that it doesn't actually exist, today.

Right now, the current range of capital ships is such that no part of lowsec actually meets these requirements. If I and my closest one thousand friends wanted to take a weekend trip to an isolated lowsec pocket, move in, and put cars up on cinder blocks, it'd be trivial for us to do so. (This is not a threat; the vagaries of the current political climate make this particularly infeasible anyways as we have a multi-front war that we are currently fighting. Just take it as an example of how things are today. This also neatly discounts the "conflict becomes obsolete" argument.) The diversity you speak of is being manufactured, from whole cloth, by the jump range reduction and the introduction of fatigue. As such, this future diversity is not yet set in stone. If this proto-diversity was sacrosanct, then we wouldn't have seen the easing of the jump freighter range from five lightyears to ten lightyears. I was particularly saddened by this revelation, having spent a significant amount of time optimizing for it and finding ways to use it to my advantage. (But I digress.)

I find it difficult to take seriously an argument that denounces the change on the grounds of a vignette that, by the very physical reality of how the game works, cannot possibly have taken place, as well as a vignette that has already been encroached upon once by revisions to the proposed changes in question.


First of all - thanks for agreeing with my main point. Its diverse enough as it is - and the jump part is about to be changed to ensure that even more.

To use a different analogy for your argument: The universe is as it is - if you dont like the climate of where you live you wont seriously consider moving the sun around or stop the earth rotation. But your proposed change is exactly that. We are not able to create gates (yet) but will one day. Until then live with pockets and secluded areas. High sec and low sec are not areas that are created to be a pinball for null sec's interest but their completely own areas. They cater many people with their complete own playstyle and requirements.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1673 - 2014-10-21 19:33:05 UTC
Dwissi wrote:


First of all - thanks for agreeing with my main point. Its diverse enough as it is - and the jump part is about to be changed to ensure that even more.

To use a different analogy for your argument: The universe is as it is - if you dont like the climate of where you live you wont seriously consider moving the sun around or stop the earth rotation. But your proposed change is exactly that. We are not able to create gates (yet) but will one day. Until then live with pockets and secluded areas. High sec and low sec are not areas that are created to be a pinball for null sec's interest but their completely own areas. They cater many people with their complete own playstyle and requirements.

No -- my point is exactly the opposite. There IS no diversity in lowsec along the veins that you describe, today, due to the current ability for capital ships to travel. Even if you don't use capital ships directly to participate in fights or to consume PVE content, capital ships are widely used to move people, sub-capital ships, and materiel to and from areas at a rate much more effective than taking gates. They affect everything that players do, and make current gate topography completely unimportant.

Your analogy is also flawed because the jump range reduction and addition of jump fatigue are doing exactly as you describe -- we are moving the sun, stopping the rotation of the earth, etc. by restricting the ability to move. I can't agree that doing this is right, while simultaneously denouncing the addition of the odd gate or two to make the new style of capital movement possible.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1674 - 2014-10-21 19:37:58 UTC
Querns wrote:
Dwissi wrote:


First of all - thanks for agreeing with my main point. Its diverse enough as it is - and the jump part is about to be changed to ensure that even more.

To use a different analogy for your argument: The universe is as it is - if you dont like the climate of where you live you wont seriously consider moving the sun around or stop the earth rotation. But your proposed change is exactly that. We are not able to create gates (yet) but will one day. Until then live with pockets and secluded areas. High sec and low sec are not areas that are created to be a pinball for null sec's interest but their completely own areas. They cater many people with their complete own playstyle and requirements.

No -- my point is exactly the opposite. There IS no diversity in lowsec along the veins that you describe, today, due to the current ability for capital ships to travel. Even if you don't use capital ships directly to participate in fights or to consume PVE content, capital ships are widely used to move people, sub-capital ships, and materiel to and from areas at a rate much more effective than taking gates. They affect everything that players do, and make current gate topography completely unimportant.

Your analogy is also flawed because the jump range reduction and addition of jump fatigue are doing exactly as you describe -- we are moving the sun, stopping the rotation of the earth, etc. by restricting the ability to move. I can't agree that doing this is right, while simultaneously denouncing the addition of the odd gate or two to make the new style of capital movement possible.


The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1675 - 2014-10-21 19:39:08 UTC
Dwissi wrote:

The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.

The box is not sacrosanct. It can be changed.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1676 - 2014-10-21 19:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Dwissi wrote:
The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.

Just like ships or modules sometimes requiring balance, so too might the universe, if the changes being made to other parts of the game might mean that some areas end up lacking in the strategy department.

Just like when they decided to get rid of ice belts and replace them with respawning belts.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1677 - 2014-10-21 19:58:01 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.

Just like ships or modules sometimes requiring balance, so too might the universe, if the changes being made to other parts of the game might mean that some areas end up lacking in the strategy department.

Just like when they decided to get rid of ice belts and replace them with respawning belts.


I better not comment on the belts - just ends in a rant as its one of the worst things that have been done imho - but thats irrelevant for this issue. CCP was asked many years ago by the players to provide them with a ship type that would ease up on parts of the null warfare as it used to be. The ships had nothing to do with the travelling the universe or any other aspect by that definition - it was a warfare problem being solved. These ships are just a very small part of the entire contents of the box. Movig and adjusting their values and abilities may ruffle up the contents of the box - but there is not a single valid argument to change the box for that.

Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1678 - 2014-10-21 20:02:50 UTC
Dwissi wrote:

Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.

Sorry, but your metaphors are pretty weak. The universe's geographical layout isn't sacrosanct. It just isn't. They've added regions and gates since version 1.0. No amount of metaphor changes that.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1679 - 2014-10-21 20:15:37 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.

Just like ships or modules sometimes requiring balance, so too might the universe, if the changes being made to other parts of the game might mean that some areas end up lacking in the strategy department.

Just like when they decided to get rid of ice belts and replace them with respawning belts.


I better not comment on the belts - just ends in a rant as its one of the worst things that have been done imho - but thats irrelevant for this issue. CCP was asked many years ago by the players to provide them with a ship type that would ease up on parts of the null warfare as it used to be. The ships had nothing to do with the travelling the universe or any other aspect by that definition - it was a warfare problem being solved. These ships are just a very small part of the entire contents of the box. Movig and adjusting their values and abilities may ruffle up the contents of the box - but there is not a single valid argument to change the box for that.

Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.

I do distinctly remember CCP making tons of changes to routes (moving, removing, adding) between systems when the eve universe was a wee bit younger than it is now. I'm not going to bother going through the old changenotes, but it's all in there, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to continue doing that when it comes to light that it might be beneficial for the entire game due to other far-reaching changes which have been (or in this case, will be) implemented.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1680 - 2014-10-21 20:16:28 UTC
Querns wrote:
Dwissi wrote:

Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.

Sorry, but your metaphors are pretty weak. The universe's geographical layout isn't sacrosanct. It just isn't. They've added regions and gates since version 1.0. No amount of metaphor changes that.


Well - those changes have obviously been the source of a lot of evil. But lets play along with your theory and request. Then please CCP - remove Jita from the universe if you change any access between null and empire.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty