These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1701 - 2014-10-21 22:17:11 UTC
Perhaps I should elucidate on the previous post I've made.

Your argument is "because I think that capital ships 'have their roots in nullsec', despite the fact that capital ships are used daily in lowsec, no accomodations could possibly be made to ease their use in a new environment where jumping is heavily penalized."

Just... wow.

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
#1702 - 2014-10-21 22:48:26 UTC
Querns wrote:
Perhaps I should elucidate on the previous post I've made.

Your argument is "because I think that capital ships 'have their roots in nullsec', despite the fact that capital ships are used daily in lowsec, no accomodations could possibly be made to ease their use in a new environment where jumping is heavily penalized."

Just... wow.


I dont think - i know. Rephrasing my words fits very much to your post right before this one. Maybe a few moments spend in the Evelopedia brings you up to common ground and reduces the 'wow' effect for you.

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
#1703 - 2014-10-21 22:56:59 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Querns wrote:
Perhaps I should elucidate on the previous post I've made.

Your argument is "because I think that capital ships 'have their roots in nullsec', despite the fact that capital ships are used daily in lowsec, no accomodations could possibly be made to ease their use in a new environment where jumping is heavily penalized."

Just... wow.


I dont think - i know. Rephrasing my words fits very much to your post right before this one. Maybe a few moments spend in the Evelopedia brings you up to common ground and reduces the 'wow' effect for you.

Even though citing Evelopedia is the height of folly and irredeemably renders any point you have meaningless, I'll take this one anyways.

The capital ships entry on evelopedia does, in no way, mention that capital ships "have their roots in nullsec," neither by direct quote nor content of writing. The only thing it even mentions about nullsec is a couple of anecdotes about player events. Your link does nothing to bolster your own point, and that's before you throw in the incredulity of using it as a primary source.

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
#1704 - 2014-10-21 22:57:31 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Querns wrote:
Perhaps I should elucidate on the previous post I've made.

Your argument is "because I think that capital ships 'have their roots in nullsec', despite the fact that capital ships are used daily in lowsec, no accomodations could possibly be made to ease their use in a new environment where jumping is heavily penalized."

Just... wow.


I dont think - i know. Rephrasing my words fits very much to your post right before this one. Maybe a few moments spend in the Evelopedia brings you up to common ground and reduces the 'wow' effect for you.

So the capital ships were made exclusively for sov warfare?

Well **** son, guess we'd best kick them out of lowsec too. Wouldn't want them used where they weren't intended to be used.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1705 - 2014-10-21 23:37:24 UTC
I could edit that page to say Primary This Rifter is the best damn Archon pilot there is.

I wonder if Dwissi would believe it.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1706 - 2014-10-22 03:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
Easthir Ravin wrote:
Sure a carrier group takes time to get to Okinawa, but that is its JOB to do that....EVE is already time consuming as it is, no mechanic should purposely increase the time it takes to do anything in this game.


Time as space are key attributes that both tactics and strategy take advantage of.

Make it so you can be anywhere at anytime and you destroy some of the best strategies and tactics that smaller forces have used to counter larger forces, and vice versa.

Dramatically increase the time it takes to get anywhere and that will dramatically improve the diversity of the strategies and tactics available, instead of just blob.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1707 - 2014-10-22 06:30:46 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I could edit that page to say Primary This Rifter is the best damn Archon pilot there is.

I wonder if Dwissi would believe it.


Good luck trying to edit it - but no need to convince me. I know you guys are all awsome pilots to begin with

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
#1708 - 2014-10-22 07:02:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Easthir Ravin wrote:
Sure a carrier group takes time to get to Okinawa, but that is its JOB to do that....EVE is already time consuming as it is, no mechanic should purposely increase the time it takes to do anything in this game.

I'm going to just disagree with you there. When it comes to movement over large distances, especially when it comes to things which are as powerful as caps are, offensively.

Short trips should still be fairly quick, and they are with CCP's solution, as long as they're not too numerous in sequence. This is unlike Andy Landen's suggestion, which takes away caps' opportunity to use their jump capabilities in an offensive manner, and only leaves that as a GTFO card, and any travel anywhere (except by gates) is turned into a gastroscopy view of the ass-end of EVE for hours on end.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1709 - 2014-10-22 09:44:19 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
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?


With the current state of rorquals, I would put one in the belt, IN SIEGE,
IF

a) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped from 5 minutes to 1 minute or less with good skills (industrial reconfig to 5 reducing cycle time from 2 minutes base by 15 seconds per level, perhaps?)

b) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped to 2 minutes AND grav belts are moved from anomalies back to signatures provided some degree of additional safety

With either of these two changes, I would do it, since that would take hauling out of the equation. Hulks sit around the rorqual, deposit ore into freight cans, rorq scoops all the ore every few minutes, compresses. Could sit without warping off for a few hours.

Things that would help, or be nice, but wouldn't make it safe (and thus worthwhile):

a) Capital tractor beam repurposed to allowing access to cans up to 150km away, without actually pulling them in.

b) Focused aggression module that forces ire of NPCs onto the rorqual by default

c) Allowing players to jump clone away from a rorqual, leaving the clones in a clone vat bay. This would be done by being in space next to the rorqual in a pod, perhaps within 2500m, and selecting to clone jump, assuming you had permission to use the clone vat bay. Unfitting the clone vat bay would require the rorqual to be docked up, and would spit out all jumpclones into that station. There are some obvious potential problems with this, like clone destruction from multiple in one station, or a tactic to slip spy clones into a station they cant normally dock at.

d) Somehow reducing the bonus of the Rorqual overall, so that it is above an orca, but below current at a pos, but higher than it is now while in the belt

e) Rorqual does not appear on d-scan while siege and/or rorqual recieves MASSIVE sensor strength boost making it very hard to probe out while in siege. Neither makes the rorqual uncatchable, just adds a little safety.


Things that have been suggested, that would actually make the rorqual any more worth using in belts, and thus, at all really:

a) Giving the rorqual production facilities

b) Giving the rorqual an industrial jump bridge

c) Giving the rorqual a defensive bubble, protecting any mining ships within the bubble from gankers


As for the whole, caps entering cynojammed systems, CCP has already made it so that a focused interdictor point will prevent capitals/supers from jumping. Why not make cynojammers prevent INBOUND capital/supercapital gate travel? (With an exception for freighters and jump freighters to maintain the current system for them)
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1710 - 2014-10-22 11:12:51 UTC
So we can all agree then that having 3 small LS pockets inaccessible to capitals by gate travel (you can still jump in and out) doesn't break eve game play? I think that's what I got out of that whole LS pocket discussion.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1711 - 2014-10-22 11:28:54 UTC
Your rorq ideas go from very reasonable to batshit crazy P

Messing w/ clone bay mechanics always opens up wide possibilities for abuse, and that is especially true w/ long distance travel getting a good wonking.

The anti gank bubble for mining ships seems kind of over powered. If the gank proof miners had a means of escape/retreat while the rorq takes the assbeating... that would make a lot of folks sad. I could see where it could be abused on gates - a few gank immune ventures for quick lock and a large swarm of drones from the rest of the 'mining' fleet would be devastating. Add a few carriers for logistics and I see a crappy mechanic being born. (you have to remember that some groups feel they NEED to employ such tactics because 'that's how you win') So anti miner gank bubble would be tricky. Maybe only works in belts, but then it's approaching HS aggro mechanics in complexity.

Tractor beam.... I would hate to see them change how a basic process/mechanic works.

Agression magnet for NPC to rorq only... Roll

I guess overall I would say this topic needs yet another new thread to flesh it out, as this thread is for power projection tears and jears. I don't have a rorq km in my history, so I'm all for anything that gets them out and about!!!
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1712 - 2014-10-22 11:31:37 UTC
Arronicus wrote:


b) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped to 2 minutes AND grav belts are moved from anomalies back to signatures provided some degree of additional safety

With either of these two changes, I would do it, since that would take hauling out of the equation. Hulks sit around the rorqual, deposit ore into freight cans, rorq scoops all the ore every few minutes, compresses. Could sit without warping off for a few hours.

d) Somehow reducing the bonus of the Rorqual overall, so that it is above an orca, but below current at a pos, but higher than it is now while in the belt

e) Rorqual does not appear on d-scan while siege and/or rorqual recieves MASSIVE sensor strength boost making it very hard to probe out while in siege. Neither makes the rorqual uncatchable, just adds a little safety.


Those are awsome suggestions - would love to see them as well

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1713 - 2014-10-22 11:47:01 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
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?


With the current state of rorquals, I would put one in the belt, IN SIEGE,
IF

a) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped from 5 minutes to 1 minute or less with good skills (industrial reconfig to 5 reducing cycle time from 2 minutes base by 15 seconds per level, perhaps?)

b) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped to 2 minutes AND grav belts are moved from anomalies back to signatures provided some degree of additional safety

With either of these two changes, I would do it, since that would take hauling out of the equation. Hulks sit around the rorqual, deposit ore into freight cans, rorq scoops all the ore every few minutes, compresses. Could sit without warping off for a few hours.

Things that would help, or be nice, but wouldn't make it safe (and thus worthwhile):

a) Capital tractor beam repurposed to allowing access to cans up to 150km away, without actually pulling them in.

b) Focused aggression module that forces ire of NPCs onto the rorqual by default

c) Allowing players to jump clone away from a rorqual, leaving the clones in a clone vat bay. This would be done by being in space next to the rorqual in a pod, perhaps within 2500m, and selecting to clone jump, assuming you had permission to use the clone vat bay. Unfitting the clone vat bay would require the rorqual to be docked up, and would spit out all jumpclones into that station. There are some obvious potential problems with this, like clone destruction from multiple in one station, or a tactic to slip spy clones into a station they cant normally dock at.

d) Somehow reducing the bonus of the Rorqual overall, so that it is above an orca, but below current at a pos, but higher than it is now while in the belt

e) Rorqual does not appear on d-scan while siege and/or rorqual recieves MASSIVE sensor strength boost making it very hard to probe out while in siege. Neither makes the rorqual uncatchable, just adds a little safety.


Things that have been suggested, that would actually make the rorqual any more worth using in belts, and thus, at all really:

a) Giving the rorqual production facilities

b) Giving the rorqual an industrial jump bridge

c) Giving the rorqual a defensive bubble, protecting any mining ships within the bubble from gankers


As for the whole, caps entering cynojammed systems, CCP has already made it so that a focused interdictor point will prevent capitals/supers from jumping. Why not make cynojammers prevent INBOUND capital/supercapital gate travel? (With an exception for freighters and jump freighters to maintain the current system for them)


This is great info, thanks. Forwarded it on to some balance people :)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1714 - 2014-10-22 13:09:43 UTC
I would prefer that we take the Indy core out back and shoot it, then go from there.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1715 - 2014-10-22 13:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Your rorq ideas go from very reasonable to batshit crazy P

Messing w/ clone bay mechanics always opens up wide possibilities for abuse, and that is especially true w/ long distance travel getting a good wonking.

The anti gank bubble for mining ships seems kind of over powered. If the gank proof miners had a means of escape/retreat while the rorq takes the assbeating... that would make a lot of folks sad. I could see where it could be abused on gates - a few gank immune ventures for quick lock and a large swarm of drones from the rest of the 'mining' fleet would be devastating. Add a few carriers for logistics and I see a crappy mechanic being born. (you have to remember that some groups feel they NEED to employ such tactics because 'that's how you win') So anti miner gank bubble would be tricky. Maybe only works in belts, but then it's approaching HS aggro mechanics in complexity.

Tractor beam.... I would hate to see them change how a basic process/mechanic works.

Agression magnet for NPC to rorq only... Roll

I guess overall I would say this topic needs yet another new thread to flesh it out, as this thread is for power projection tears and jears. I don't have a rorq km in my history, so I'm all for anything that gets them out and about!!!


With the clone bay, that was the problem I was seeing too. How do you allow it to work, without causing issues. As it currently stands, the clone vat bay is useless for anyone who likes to run implants in their clones. I don't know of any nullsec miners who don't run at the very least a yield implant, so right now all a clone vat bay gets used for is for noobs to create jumpclones, and even then, theres so many stations available. In terms of practical usage for mass fleet travel, it is not practical, because the clone vat bay has a limit on the number of clones in it (so you'd need 10-50 rorqs all set up and ready) for a sizable fleet, not to mention all the pilots putting a clone in the rorquals, when they could just put it in the station all the ships are already staged at. Doesn't speed anything up for those situations.

With the anti-gank bubble, that's what I was saying, bad idea. However, it doesn't save the rorq either, as people will just kill the rorq still

With the capital tractor beam, it is neither used much, nor practical. Many rorquals are working with fleet ops of between 6 and 30 miners. Running full mining links alone, leaves you with 2 free slots (I run a shield and a skirmish link for even stronger tanks and smaller sig radius), meaning you can fit a maximum of 2 capital tractor beams. With even 11 hulks, this would be an incredibly pain if you were trying to tractor in many jetcans.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1716 - 2014-10-22 13:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Yroc Jannseen
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
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?

A lot of words about putting Rorquals in belts.


This is great info, thanks. Forwarded it on to some balance people :)


Okay so you really seem pretty geared toward trying to keep the Rorqual in the role it was originally envisioned and as it's description is written. Okay. That's great.

But if you're going to do that than what is the point of the large general purpose cargo hold? If the sole idea of this ship is to sit in the belt and compress ore and provide boosts, than also gimp it into that role.

BUT

Let me ask this, do you or the null sec dev group recognize POS work as something somewhat unique, that JF's are not really suited for?

Do you see the need for something between the freighter and the JF that has a jump drive?

If you really want to keep the Rorqual in belts at the expense of other features (RANGE), than would you consider adding a ship to fill the role that a lot of people are using the Rorqual for now?

What would some of the key features be of this type of ship?

1) JUMP RANGE! Doesn't have to be 10ly but at least 8 like the blops. As has been mentioned in this thread for the Rorq, perhaps tie it to a skill.

2) Full fitting layout. High's, mids, lows and rigs this helps to really work towards the next point.

3) Enough strength to defend itself to escape or tank for a moderate time until help arrives. Think ability to break light tackle (1 or 2 inty's) or ability to hold off a frigate gang. Similar to what the Rorqual has now.

4) Cargo space. Enough cargo space to bring everything needed to set up a POS. Think tower, full stront, mods fuel. Keep in mind the size of things like JB's.

Also on this note I will again bring up the idea of allowing us to choose the cargo specialization. Lets uses 376k m3 as an example. (Current max Rorq capacity not including the 30km3 fleet hangar)

1/3 of the 376km3 should be general purpose.
2/3 should be specialized BUT we should be able to choose the specialization by changing the fit.

So you end up with a ship that can haul a lot of a specific category, Moon Materials, Fuel Blocks, ore, minerals, composites, etc.
But it can't haul a mish mash of everything all at once as a JF can.

Those numbers for capacity are examples and certainly could be adjusted, but the big thing is being able to carry pos modules like JB's which are 100km3. Reduce module size if necessary.

5) Cost Should be cheaper than a JF. Prices fluctuate but JF's are still pretty expensive.

6) Miscellaneous - consider making Capital tractor beams able to pull unanchored pos modules. Agility and warp strength similar to the DST are useful. Capital MJD? Maybe, although that might be too much (probably).

I recognize that new ships take a lot of work on the art side, so what about just making a T2 version of the Rorqual, keep with the whale theme and call it a Narwhal or something. Price is a big factor so you would have to play around there. Maybe reduce the base costs of the Rorq.

One other thing that would be interesting. Can you check the database to find out how many assembled Rorquals that are currently out there, have mining link or industrial cores fitted. That should give you an idea of how many people are using the ship more in a hauling role.

EDIT: 7) Of course the same fatigue bonus the rorq is getting as well
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1717 - 2014-10-22 13:46:21 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:


Okay so you really seem pretty geared toward trying to keep the Rorqual in the role it was originally envisioned and as it's description is written. Okay. That's great.

But if you're going to do that than what is the point of the large general purpose cargo hold? If the sole idea of this ship is to sit in the belt and compress ore and provide boosts, than also gimp it into that role.



As far as i can see the changes made to all the mining ships (splitting cargo hold into cargo hold+ore hold) have not been reflected to the cargo hold of the Rorqual. Before that mentioned change crystals etc was better moved by the Rorq and picked up from there instead of filling up the hold of the mining ship itself. A real mining supply and refuel role basically.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Thycoon
Patrician Space Incorporation
Patrician Space Incorporation Holding Alliance
#1718 - 2014-10-22 14:33:55 UTC
I checked out the new jump rules for the JF’s. With the limitation to 10 light years some areas of the universe will be nearly unreachable for the JF’s.

As compensation for the new timer rules you could let the trained jump range of JDC 5 for JF’s to 11.5 ly (you would have to compensate with the skill points for the trained skill if not) otherwise the service to the border regions could be closed down.

If you really want to get small corporations into the outskirts of the Universe you will need some new NPC systems in these boarder regions as bridge systems.

But you can think about how much the present owners of the big alliance SOV’s are pissed off with this and will gank any attempt of corporations which trying to establish new grounds in the border regions and which corporation will start over and over again to settle in the border region!

It need only to gank any attempt to avoid any settlements.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1719 - 2014-10-22 16:00:12 UTC
Thycoon wrote:
I checked out the new jump rules for the JF’s. With the limitation to 10 light years some areas of the universe will be nearly unreachable for the JF’s.

As compensation for the new timer rules you could let the trained jump range of JDC 5 for JF’s to 11.5 ly (you would have to compensate with the skill points for the trained skill if not) otherwise the service to the border regions could be closed down.

If you really want to get small corporations into the outskirts of the Universe you will need some new NPC systems in these boarder regions as bridge systems.

But you can think about how much the present owners of the big alliance SOV’s are pissed off with this and will gank any attempt of corporations which trying to establish new grounds in the border regions and which corporation will start over and over again to settle in the border region!

It need only to gank any attempt to avoid any settlements.



NPC stations to bridge little guys to deep regions is the ultimate in bad ideas. Is your intent to lock the large guys out of these stations? If not, in lieu of granting access to deep null you have given the big rich guys a convenient place to stage assets to dominate the area. I would say the best method is to make it too inconvenient to reach, so the big lads won't be bothered by the effort. Your next logical idea is to recommend level 4 missions based out of player owned outposts.

Compensation for JDC 5??? Roll If you had fun playing eve while training said skill, then CCP owes you nothing. You pay for entertainment, not a garantee that JDC 5 will always and forever give you what you expected. Here's mine... Fozzie totally fooked my beloved geddon. It was a masterpiece of space carnage. It was the end all in sub cap structure grinding options..... now it's a neuting drone boat. I'm still pissed. I still want to whack Fozzie over the head with a large dead fish. I don't expect CCP to give me anything because the 'tweaked' a ships abilities. I trained amarr BS to 5 and I'm angry, but I'm not looking for a handout.



afkboss
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1720 - 2014-10-22 16:37:03 UTC
30 Days for the upper limit still seems very extreme. Hell a week seems Extreme. I think the Devs might have to think of it from more of a players perspective because if I get a 30 day timer i will just unsub for a month until its gone.