These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#1881 - 2014-10-28 15:01:57 UTC
I'm not gonna go back and quote it all but this response is to Andy Landen's idea.

First off, if your capital is trapped in far away space, have you considered putting it up for sale? I mean that's what those of us without capitals do. That would certainly improve the markets in null space, more seeded items and some discounts due to fire sales. You can always buy another one later, there is no shortage of caps being produced. If you have faction mods to worry about you can run those out in something cloaky and reuse them.

Secondly, the entire premise of using a travel delay instead of a jump timer and fatigue is terrible. For some reason you think breaking up the fight into smaller fights that happen at different times is a benefit. But the problem was never that big fights were happening, the problem was that big groups could be anywhere anytime with their full force. Groups should be able to bring their full force and be able to deploy them to a fight at the same time locally. The problem is when they can do that anywhere in the universe with almost no delay using little effort. FC's spend a lot of time waiting for people to get in position so they can execute their plans. Your suggestion would make this worse and also allow for people dropping into the fight late or after it's over. Yes, you said people could drop out of the jump into some random space along the way, but that causes another problem. Caps would just fit a cloak and drop out of a jump intentionally to safespot. What I mean is that they would make a jump with the intention of never reaching the destination, because the alternative gives a large amount of safety.

CCP's proposed system allows pilots to make choices that have meaning. If a fleet is forming up and you aren't close by you can still get there in a timely fashion, with the tradeoff that you will have higher fatigue to burn down later. This allow for players to make choices and have options. Your idea offers choices but they are all bad, equally. You can get there late, not go at all, or give up somewhere along the way.

I get that you don't like the proposed system, but you don't seem to get that your idea is worse. Accept what is coming or try a new idea, but throw this one away because it's terrible.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Dustpuppy
New Eden Ferengi
#1882 - 2014-10-28 15:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dustpuppy
(about POS placement auto info):

Rowells wrote:

I would much prefer this info come in a delayed time frame rather than moved completely. Even a decent-sized alliance isn't going to find any fun in checking every single POS every 24hrs to see if its not RFed.[...] Basically still ends up with the same time delay if you had to check it yourself, but without the wrist cutting job of flying to every moon in your constellation (or larger if you are bigger).


But it is exactly my intention to to force groups to do this wrist cutting job. A small corp with 10-20 members owning 3-5 systems is able to quickly scan them to see if unwanted POSses are there and for 10-20 members 5 systems should offer enough playground for mining, rat hunting, production and PI.

But if you own more (just like all these "Holdings") you are and you should be in trouble.
To outline this, here are some example:

Unthinkables "Holding": 10 members, 55 systems
NCDot "holdings": 16 members, 671 systems
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere - 28 members, 110 systems


As soon as these groups cannot longer rely on the ISK coming from renters to keep the SOV signs in the other systems running the whole thing will implode.

Do you believe someone is willing to pay 2-6 billion/month renting fee for a system if there are 16 people "controling" the area and being forced to fly around and check 670 systems for intruders?

I don't believe this. I believe such a change would first break this whole renter system into pieces, cut the isk faucet of the big groups and finally hit them hard. Without the renter income they wouldn't be able to build supers with a speed others build/buy frigs and as soon as the amount of supers shrink smaller groups could rise and conquer the big fat ones.

Time delays don't change anything - the owner gets a notification with 100% chance. It doesn't matter if the sys owner appears 1 day or 4 days later, the point is that he will do it and he can because he knows everything.

So what I would like to see is the possibility to sneak in, take over "ownership" of a little corner in null which currently belongs to the fat ones, use it in my own way but don't pay for the rent. If they come and catch me, well, that would be the risk. And after travelling through 0.0 I must say: the risk is not too high. Looking at the group size of these holdings also tells me: no chance they will catch me.


Btw.: might be good to split this part off into a new discussion, it's OT (sorry)
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1883 - 2014-10-28 16:15:54 UTC
Niskin wrote:
I'm not gonna go back and quote it all but this response is to Andy Landen's idea.

First off, if your capital is trapped in far away space, have you considered putting it up for sale? I mean that's what those of us without capitals do. That would certainly improve the markets in null space, more seeded items and some discounts due to fire sales. You can always buy another one later, there is no shortage of caps being produced. If you have faction mods to worry about you can run those out in something cloaky and reuse them.

Secondly, the entire premise of using a travel delay instead of a jump timer and fatigue is terrible. For some reason you think breaking up the fight into smaller fights that happen at different times is a benefit. But the problem was never that big fights were happening, the problem was that big groups could be anywhere anytime with their full force. Groups should be able to bring their full force and be able to deploy them to a fight at the same time locally. The problem is when they can do that anywhere in the universe with almost no delay using little effort. FC's spend a lot of time waiting for people to get in position so they can execute their plans. Your suggestion would make this worse and also allow for people dropping into the fight late or after it's over. Yes, you said people could drop out of the jump into some random space along the way, but that causes another problem. Caps would just fit a cloak and drop out of a jump intentionally to safespot. What I mean is that they would make a jump with the intention of never reaching the destination, because the alternative gives a large amount of safety.

CCP's proposed system allows pilots to make choices that have meaning. If a fleet is forming up and you aren't close by you can still get there in a timely fashion, with the tradeoff that you will have higher fatigue to burn down later. This allow for players to make choices and have options. Your idea offers choices but they are all bad, equally. You can get there late, not go at all, or give up somewhere along the way.

I get that you don't like the proposed system, but you don't seem to get that your idea is worse. Accept what is coming or try a new idea, but throw this one away because it's terrible.

I appreciate the thought put into your response and ask that you consider a few counter points.

The market for capital ships is much, much slower than for other ships. Fire selling a capital ship involves slashing the price by 20-30% of several billion ISK! That translates to losses of hundreds of millions of ISK! This is very different from losses of 20-30% on subcap ships, which even for tier 1 BS may translate to tens of millions of ISK. Faction BS and other expensive ships can merely be packaged up and shipped out with a carrier (for a few more days) or jump freighter. Interestingly, the demand spike on jump freighters will spike the cost of shipment and the cost of jump freighters. You can thank CCP's jump fatigue for that.

Obviously, supers cannot be put up for sale as long as CCP bans them from docking (but not from jumping through gates? really?). Way to sock it to our super pilots.

On the choices part of the discussion, the option to jump the caps through gates should not be forgotten. And caps jumping from nearby would arrive sooner following my travel delay plan.

I never said that big fights were the problem. Breaking up a fight according to distance solves the issue of FC's having to plan their strategies based on the worst case scenario that distant foes would be part of the battle. The travel delay would still allow nearby capitals to jump into the battle while it was still going. And if jumping took too long, they could always take the gates like everyone else. So big battles could still easily occur and my idea is just fine.

TGR seems to have a problem hearing the option of gates, so I'll say it again, Gates would be an option with my idea, and when time is of the essence, gate travel would have a strong appeal. This push for capitals to use the gates when time is not a luxury would add much more meaning and conflict to Eve. You can still get there in a timely fashion with a cap under my idea if you use the gates!

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#1884 - 2014-10-28 16:52:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
All that said, on the wider topic of capital alts, if alliances have the capability to fund many new capital alts, what's the reason they're not already doing so in the current system?

Because it's not needed in the current system. ROI is pretty much nill on such a thing when you can jump across the galaxy in five minutes. But this system now creates a demand for capital alts, so capital alts will be purchased/trained. They might not be a common sight at the beginning, but players will adjust their training queues accordingly. Right now with MCT, I'm in the process of divorcing my capability to earn ISK from my main, so that my main essentially becomes a capital alt (and you're forcing that change on her, too, as with carriers taking gates, we know what the new meta is going to be). And then I've got the MCT alt's capital training planned out on top of that. Give it a year or two, and the capability will be commonplace. This is why what you're doing now is just a temporary disruption. And my cynicism regarding your changes emerges from the fact that overcoming them means I have to give CCP more money.
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative

This seems to run counter to your stated goals to make nullsec more self-sufficient. You make logisitics vulnerable now, but then in the future it seems you want to make logistics less important. Especially as you're considering seeding the various isotopes/ices into a more homogenous distribution if this change proves too disruptive. Have I misinterpreted your goals?
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1885 - 2014-10-28 17:27:18 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
All that said, on the wider topic of capital alts, if alliances have the capability to fund many new capital alts, what's the reason they're not already doing so in the current system?

Because it's not needed in the current system. ROI is pretty much nill on such a thing when you can jump across the galaxy in five minutes. But this system now creates a demand for capital alts, so capital alts will be purchased/trained. They might not be a common sight at the beginning, but players will adjust their training queues accordingly. Right now with MCT, I'm in the process of divorcing my capability to earn ISK from my main, so that my main essentially becomes a capital alt (and you're forcing that change on her, too, as with carriers taking gates, we know what the new meta is going to be). And then I've got the MCT alt's capital training planned out on top of that. Give it a year or two, and the capability will be commonplace. This is why what you're doing now is just a temporary disruption. And my cynicism regarding your changes emerges from the fact that overcoming them means I have to give CCP more money.
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative

This seems to run counter to your stated goals to make nullsec more self-sufficient. You make logisitics vulnerable now, but then in the future it seems you want to make logistics less important. Especially as you're considering seeding the various isotopes/ices into a more homogenous distribution if this change proves too disruptive. Have I misinterpreted your goals?


...Or you can do what CCP intends for you to do, function as a local alliance and not a region-hopping coalition.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#1886 - 2014-10-28 17:29:57 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I appreciate the thought put into your response and ask that you consider a few counter points.

The market for capital ships is much, much slower than for other ships. Fire selling a capital ship involves slashing the price by 20-30% of several billion ISK! That translates to losses of hundreds of millions of ISK! This is very different from losses of 20-30% on subcap ships, which even for tier 1 BS may translate to tens of millions of ISK. Faction BS and other expensive ships can merely be packaged up and shipped out with a carrier (for a few more days) or jump freighter. Interestingly, the demand spike on jump freighters will spike the cost of shipment and the cost of jump freighters. You can thank CCP's jump fatigue for that.

Obviously, supers cannot be put up for sale as long as CCP bans them from docking (but not from jumping through gates? really?). Way to sock it to our super pilots.

On the choices part of the discussion, the option to jump the caps through gates should not be forgotten. And caps jumping from nearby would arrive sooner following my travel delay plan.

I never said that big fights were the problem. Breaking up a fight according to distance solves the issue of FC's having to plan their strategies based on the worst case scenario that distant foes would be part of the battle. The travel delay would still allow nearby capitals to jump into the battle while it was still going. And if jumping took too long, they could always take the gates like everyone else. So big battles could still easily occur and my idea is just fine.

TGR seems to have a problem hearing the option of gates, so I'll say it again, Gates would be an option with my idea, and when time is of the essence, gate travel would have a strong appeal. This push for capitals to use the gates when time is not a luxury would add much more meaning and conflict to Eve. You can still get there in a timely fashion with a cap under my idea if you use the gates!


That's part of the risk of owning an expensive ship. There shouldn't be an exception for caps just because they are expensive. When I bought my first battleship I could barely afford it, and certainly couldn't afford to replace it. That forced me to make choices about when I was comfortable risking it. Whether I was undocking it for a roam or taking it out to null doesn't matter. The risk is that it will be lost, the consideration is whether you can afford to lose it or not, and the way it's lost doesn't actually matter. The point is that caps aren't special, whether it gets blown up or sold, you have to live with the fact that you could lose it. At least with the sale you'd have something to show for it. If people can always move all their stuff easily then there will never be a reason not to go to Jita.

Supers are another matter, but they can be sold. You have to post them on the forums and jump them somewhere a third party holding corp (Chribba, etc) will go. I won't shed any tears for a solo super pilot who is stranded, those ships were meant to be flown by pilots who have others around to help them deal with situations that are difficult.

I forgot that you said jumping gates would still be there in your proposal, so I'll give you that. But what I said about the abuse of the delayed jump mechanic still stands. Abusing a jump to safe up a cap would become the rule, not just an option, and that is the exact condition under which CCP says they will nerf things.

As far as the big fights, that would allay the FC's fear of that worse case scenario, but it would create a whole new list of worries related to getting people in place to prepare for a fight. Staging has to happen somewhere, and it needs to be close enough so that you aren't waiting an hour or more to jump to the objective. It also has to be far enough away that you aren't at risk of being jumped into while staging. These are real choices, which could be good for the game, but the jump delay itself is still too boring for the average player to tolerate. There are things in EVE that are boring but you always have a choice to do them if they benefit you. Waiting for stragglers to arrive so a fleet can go out is boring, but necessary, and there are options such are leaving without them or flying in a such a manner that they can catch up. But with the jump delay, once you jump, it's boring, period.

I'm going to say this as clearly as possible and I hope you get it: There is one very specific problem with your proposal, while parts of it may have merit, it is simply too boring and too much of a time sink to implement a jump delay as you have described it.

Personally I would prefer shorter jump ranges, regardless of what else comes in the power projection changes. You seem to have the opposite opinion so we may have difficulty seeing eye to eye. Cutting the range fixes a bunch of issues, while the jump timer and fatigue give options to extend oneself, with the applicable downsides, to allow for a balanced decision.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#1887 - 2014-10-28 17:40:08 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
...Or you can do what CCP intends for you to do, function as a local alliance and not a region-hopping coalition.

And miners could do what CCP intended for them to do and warp back to station every time their hold gets full. CCP's intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to how best (as in efficiency) to play the game.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1888 - 2014-10-28 17:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Andy Landen wrote:
TGR seems to have a problem hearing the option of gates, so I'll say it again, Gates would be an option with my idea, and when time is of the essence, gate travel would have a strong appeal. This push for capitals to use the gates when time is not a luxury would add much more meaning and conflict to Eve. You can still get there in a timely fashion with a cap under my idea if you use the gates!

No, you seem to be having the impression that just because I'm not talking about something in every single post, I have a problem with it. The fact is completely the opposite, if I don't talk about it, I've either not seen it, or I do not have a problem with it.

Considering gatetravel is in both proposals, and I'm not the one bitching about how vulnerable the poor wittle cappies are when taking gates, I'm not the one with a problem with the option of gates.

And I'll say it again, your "solution" would be a lot more appropriate in a SP strategy game where you're not forcing actual live players to sit there and watch intestines for 3 hours one way, shoot a POS and watch intestines for 3 more hours just to get home, or the defenders to guess which system you're going to based on what direction spies'll see the fleet jumping in, etc.

Accept the fact that it (i.e. the "hyperdrive solution") doesn't work, like multiple people (not just me) have told you by now.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1889 - 2014-10-28 18:03:44 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
...Or you can do what CCP intends for you to do, function as a local alliance and not a region-hopping coalition.

And miners could do what CCP intended for them to do and warp back to station every time their hold gets full. CCP's intent means absolutely nothing when it comes to how best (as in efficiency) to play the game.



Good point. Comparing jet can mining to the big blue donut brought it all together for me. How could CCP possibly let jet can mining continue and yet intervene on a game ending (see subscriptions for last year and a half) practice of not fighting for territory. This whole thing just doesn't make any sense.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1890 - 2014-10-28 18:15:23 UTC
Personally I just loved the use of the phrase 'overcome' in the context of dealing with the upcoming changes. Seems like everyone is grasping to hold onto their current meta at all cost.

But then again some .MEN just want to watch the world burn.
Turrann Dallocort
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1891 - 2014-10-28 18:30:23 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.


I very much agree with the idea behind the drone bonus if the rorqual is being revised NOW but the problem is you are taking away yet another thing from rorqual pilots and giving nothing back except the promise that the ship is on the to-do-list to be addressed some time down the road. If we are looking at a full overhaul of the rorqual in the next 6 months, then yes, please, keep my drone bonus and limit my jump distance. But if a complete overhaul of the rorqual isn't going to happen in the next 6 months, can you just let us keep this one thing until you do get to it on the list?

I do look forward to being able to use my rorqual effectively in the belts and also having a viable option to defending it, the drone bonus being part of that. But until then....
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1892 - 2014-10-28 18:31:08 UTC
Dustpuppy wrote:
(about POS placement auto info):
But it is exactly my intention to to force groups to do this wrist cutting job. A small corp with 10-20 members owning 3-5 systems is able to quickly scan them to see if unwanted POSses are there and for 10-20 members 5 systems should offer enough playground for mining, rat hunting, production and PI.
this idea of a 10-20 man corp owning that many systems and using that many POSes. These are the small froups I have been referring to to in my previous posts, as to not having a reasonable chance of owning or taking sov, and rightly so. Its extremely unrealistic. even in wh a corp that big will get rolled out if someone doesnt want them there. Its highly unrealistic to believe that few people can own and hold those systems for any reasonable amount of time.

Dustpuppy wrote:
But if you own more (just like all these "Holdings") you are and you should be in trouble.
To outline this, here are some example:

Unthinkables "Holding": 10 members, 55 systems
NCDot "holdings": 16 members, 671 systems
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere - 28 members, 110 systems


As soon as these groups cannot longer rely on the ISK coming from renters to keep the SOV signs in the other systems running the whole thing will implode.

Do you believe someone is willing to pay 2-6 billion/month renting fee for a system if there are 16 people "controling" the area and being forced to fly around and check 670 systems for intruders?
You seem to be mistaken, I'm not referring to enemy POSes, just your own structures.

Dustpuppy wrote:
I don't believe this. I believe such a change would first break this whole renter system into pieces, cut the isk faucet of the big groups and finally hit them hard. Without the renter income they wouldn't be able to build supers with a speed others build/buy frigs and as soon as the amount of supers shrink smaller groups could rise and conquer the big fat ones.

Time delays don't change anything - the owner gets a notification with 100% chance. It doesn't matter if the sys owner appears 1 day or 4 days later, the point is that he will do it and he can because he knows everything.

So what I would like to see is the possibility to sneak in, take over "ownership" of a little corner in null which currently belongs to the fat ones, use it in my own way but don't pay for the rent. If they come and catch me, well, that would be the risk. And after travelling through 0.0 I must say: the risk is not too high. Looking at the group size of these holdings also tells me: no chance they will catch me.
Again I'm not talking about enemy structures.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1893 - 2014-10-28 20:52:03 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
... consider reducing the size of i-hubs to fit within a jump freighter?

Great point, thanks for bringing it up. This is definitely something we might follow up on in a future release.

Let's everyone travel through gates, it's fun and stuff, yay!
Oh wait, it's difficult.
Alright, everyone turn back to jumpdrive.

You CAN import IHUBs via the wormholes, so what's the buzz?
You are about to ruin the only viable freighter ops (they are real! I've seen them!) only to assist some imaginary little-guy-who-cannot-scan-wormholes. Seriously?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1894 - 2014-10-28 20:54:12 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Komi Toran wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
All that said, on the wider topic of capital alts, if alliances have the capability to fund many new capital alts, what's the reason they're not already doing so in the current system?

Because it's not needed in the current system. ROI is pretty much nill on such a thing when you can jump across the galaxy in five minutes. But this system now creates a demand for capital alts, so capital alts will be purchased/trained. They might not be a common sight at the beginning, but players will adjust their training queues accordingly. Right now with MCT, I'm in the process of divorcing my capability to earn ISK from my main, so that my main essentially becomes a capital alt (and you're forcing that change on her, too, as with carriers taking gates, we know what the new meta is going to be). And then I've got the MCT alt's capital training planned out on top of that. Give it a year or two, and the capability will be commonplace. This is why what you're doing now is just a temporary disruption. And my cynicism regarding your changes emerges from the fact that overcoming them means I have to give CCP more money.
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative

This seems to run counter to your stated goals to make nullsec more self-sufficient. You make logisitics vulnerable now, but then in the future it seems you want to make logistics less important. Especially as you're considering seeding the various isotopes/ices into a more homogenous distribution if this change proves too disruptive. Have I misinterpreted your goals?


...Or you can do what CCP intends for you to do, function as a local alliance and not a region-hopping coalition.


You don't seem to understand what sandbox means... Players will do what they can to achieve their goals. If CCP wants to see that happen, they need to make effective adjustments to the sandbox walls.

Please understand- I think many alliances would rather be local, with a healthy mix of security and nearby reds. As soon as any group decides they want to be a multi regional coalition, and dominate everything they can, everyone else has to adapt or die.

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

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1895 - 2014-10-28 21:10:53 UTC
Niskin wrote:

That's part of the risk of owning an expensive ship. There shouldn't be an exception for caps just because they are expensive. When I bought my first battleship I could barely afford it, and certainly couldn't afford to replace it. That forced me to make choices about when I was comfortable risking it. Whether I was undocking it for a roam or taking it out to null doesn't matter. The risk is that it will be lost, the consideration is whether you can afford to lose it or not, and the way it's lost doesn't actually matter. The point is that caps aren't special, whether it gets blown up or sold, you have to live with the fact that you could lose it. At least with the sale you'd have something to show for it. If people can always move all their stuff easily then there will never be a reason not to go to Jita.

Supers are another matter, but they can be sold. You have to post them on the forums and jump them somewhere a third party holding corp (Chribba, etc) will go. I won't shed any tears for a solo super pilot who is stranded, those ships were meant to be flown by pilots who have others around to help them deal with situations that are difficult.

I forgot that you said jumping gates would still be there in your proposal, so I'll give you that. But what I said about the abuse of the delayed jump mechanic still stands. Abusing a jump to safe up a cap would become the rule, not just an option, and that is the exact condition under which CCP says they will nerf things.

As far as the big fights, that would allay the FC's fear of that worse case scenario, but it would create a whole new list of worries related to getting people in place to prepare for a fight. Staging has to happen somewhere, and it needs to be close enough so that you aren't waiting an hour or more to jump to the objective. It also has to be far enough away that you aren't at risk of being jumped into while staging. These are real choices, which could be good for the game, but the jump delay itself is still too boring for the average player to tolerate. There are things in EVE that are boring but you always have a choice to do them if they benefit you. Waiting for stragglers to arrive so a fleet can go out is boring, but necessary, and there are options such are leaving without them or flying in a such a manner that they can catch up. But with the jump delay, once you jump, it's boring, period.

I'm going to say this as clearly as possible and I hope you get it: There is one very specific problem with your proposal, while parts of it may have merit, it is simply too boring and too much of a time sink to implement a jump delay as you have described it.

Personally I would prefer shorter jump ranges, regardless of what else comes in the power projection changes. You seem to have the opposite opinion so we may have difficulty seeing eye to eye. Cutting the range fixes a bunch of issues, while the jump timer and fatigue give options to extend oneself, with the applicable downsides, to allow for a balanced decision.

This isn't about risk, which I am well aware. This is about killing an entire ship size without considering better ways. Also, leaving the ship for a potential return later is an option for capitals but not supers. but the point is not about if you can adapt, but if you should be forced to give up your capital (even to being stuck in a station) simply because no one thought of a better way. About being required to have 9 times as many cyno alts in order to cover the same number of jump options and still have to wait weeks between jumps. Weeks! Talk about boredom?! Jump fatigue has week and month long waits so wth!

CCP can bias against caps strongly and bias toward Black Ops and Jump Freighters strongly, but the real question is "Do I want to operate in a world of strong bias or do I prefer an open-sandbox where CCP is not trying to force me out of certain entire ship class sizes (caps) and into other ship classes (BLOPS) simply because of some preference/agenda of the day?" When biases become sufficiently strong, the game suffers as players leave. Why should I spend years training for something which will get the stick and ultimately, potentially become a virtual null? And why should I be required to have many accounts loaded only with cyno alts for access to a great many short and inefficient waypoints just to accommodate the whim of shortening jump distance for all but a few favorite ships? Is it now to be a requirement to have at least two dedicated cyno accounts (x3 each) in order to support basic capital short distance movements without any combat aspect at all?

Do regular sub-caps have deep safe spots? Absolutely. The ability to exit a jump between points would be no different than a system safe spot if there were scan probes that could comb the universe for signatures in jump. Bombers perma-camp systems for days with zero risk of getting scanned down, so there should be no issue of a ship out of the action being in a safe spot regardless of where that safe spot is located. It's just a set of coordinates.

Regarding the jump delay time, I am no authority on how long it should be to keep local fights local but allow people to travel in a reasonable amount of time, so maybe 5ly should take 5 minutes. I don't think that the specifics of the travel rate is that important if both considerations are weighed: player patience vs locality of battles, but always remember that I support gate travel and that alone is probably the solution to the boredom question.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1896 - 2014-10-28 22:04:04 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
This isn't about risk, which I am well aware.

No, it's about making a strategic choice with how you deploy your caps.

Andy Landen wrote:
This is about killing an entire ship size without considering better ways.

Bullshit. But you're free to come up with a better way. PS: your hyperdrive solution isn't it.

Andy Landen wrote:
Also, leaving the ship for a potential return later is an option for capitals but not supers. but the point is not about if you can adapt, but if you should be forced to give up your capital (even to being stuck in a station) simply because no one thought of a better way. About being required to have 9 times as many cyno alts in order to cover the same number of jump options and still have to wait weeks between jumps. Weeks! Talk about boredom?! Jump fatigue has week and month long waits so wth!

You do realize that the only way you'll actually gain more than a few hours' worth of fatigue is if you're being literally ******** in how you use your capitals, right?

I'm going to just say that if you actually do get a month of jump fatigue (in which case you have to wait 3 days between each jump, not a full month), then you bloody well deserve it.

Andy Landen wrote:
CCP can bias against caps strongly and bias toward Black Ops and Jump Freighters strongly, but the real question is "Do I want to operate in a world of strong bias or do I prefer an open-sandbox where CCP is not trying to force me out of certain entire ship class sizes (caps) and into other ship classes (BLOPS) simply because of some preference/agenda of the day?" When biases become sufficiently strong, the game suffers as players leave. Why should I spend years training for something which will get the stick and ultimately, potentially become a virtual null? And why should I be required to have many accounts loaded only with cyno alts for access to a great many short and inefficient waypoints just to accommodate the whim of shortening jump distance for all but a few favorite ships? Is it now to be a requirement to have at least two dedicated cyno accounts (x3 each) in order to support basic capital short distance movements without any combat aspect at all?

You do realize that dreads and carriers have vastly different niches within the eve universe to blops, and vastly different usecases?

Andy Landen wrote:
Do regular sub-caps have deep safe spots? Absolutely. The ability to exit a jump between points would be no different than a system safe spot if there were scan probes that could comb the universe for signatures in jump. Bombers perma-camp systems for days with zero risk of getting scanned down, so there should be no issue of a ship out of the action being in a safe spot regardless of where that safe spot is located. It's just a set of coordinates.

Regarding the jump delay time, I am no authority on how long it should be to keep local fights local but allow people to travel in a reasonable amount of time, so maybe 5ly should take 5 minutes. I don't think that the specifics of the travel rate is that important if both considerations are weighed: player patience vs locality of battles, but always remember that I support gate travel and that alone is probably the solution to the boredom question.

Bombers camping systems for days is used against ratters. If you're going to try to make a link between dreads and ratters, then you've got a vastly different take on how you're supposed to operate with a dread than most people.

As to gate travel being an alternative to jump delay ... if you think that makes your solution even remotely usable, then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's very big and very red.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1897 - 2014-10-28 22:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
@Komi Taran
I am sorry - but nobody forces anyone to have alts - this is by far the worst thing i have read so far. Learn to play with others instead of trying to solve a problem solely by yourself. Corporations and alliances are group oriented gameplay. Just because people lack the social skills to play as a team and dont trust each other to be able to do something right doesnt mean that you need to have an alt. Those are personal issues that in the real world actually lead to some serious questioning ones abilities to interact in a social environment.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#1898 - 2014-10-28 22:59:24 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
@Komi Taran
I am sorry - but nobody forces anyone to have alts - this is by far the worst thing i have read so far. Learn to play with others instead of trying to solve a problem solely by yourself. Corporations and alliances are group oriented gameplay. Just because people lack the social skills to play as a team and dont trust each other to be able to do something right doesnt mean that you need to have an alt. Those are personal issues that in the real world actually lead to some serious questioning ones abilities to interact in a social environment.

Yes. Indeed. You got it 100%. I am obviously referring to my own 1-man alliance in 0.0 that holds several regions. All on my own. All on a single account. And I'm upset that CCP is finally going to force me to play with others. Bravo ::slow clap:: Bravo ::slow clap::

Saddly, your post is not the dumbest thing I've read here. But it does try.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1899 - 2014-10-28 23:05:29 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again.

Uhh, you do realize we have mobile cyno jammers?


Read again. Hint: words 'refresh' and 'mobile options'. If you didnt read all context dont try to be smart

Mobile cyno jammers would have never worked in any capacity more powerful than they do now, any anyone who thought so was deluding themselves.

So no, what's implemented is the most anybody could have realistically asked for.

My original point still stands. We have mobile cyno jammers.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1900 - 2014-10-28 23:12:59 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again.

Uhh, you do realize we have mobile cyno jammers?


Read again. Hint: words 'refresh' and 'mobile options'. If you didnt read all context dont try to be smart

Mobile cyno jammers would have never worked in any capacity more powerful than they do now, any anyone who thought so was deluding themselves.

So no, what's implemented is the most anybody could have realistically asked for.

My original point still stands. We have mobile cyno jammers.


Try again - you snipped the wrong part. We where dealing with system cyno jammers and thatsonly a part of a my reply you referred to - thus out of context. Just read everything - the 'i snip what i like to so i can troll out of context' isnt working here.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty