These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Dev Blog] Phoebe Travel Change Update

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ix Method
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-10-30 18:08:31 UTC
Little Bobby Tables Lol

Travelling at the speed of love.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#22 - 2014-10-30 18:13:39 UTC
Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#23 - 2014-10-30 18:17:11 UTC
what about the new tug boat does it also get the 90% reduction treatment. it was not mentioned in the dev blog.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#24 - 2014-10-30 18:18:08 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?



I am thinking 95%...

though to be certain jump on SISI

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#25 - 2014-10-30 18:23:28 UTC
Querns wrote:
Yeah. I gotta be honest — my fear of the Rorqual getting trampled in its balance pass is pretty high, now. The trade of drone damage for jump range was a no-brainer and had unilateral support.

I guess it could be worse — I could still be running POS right now. Glad I divested that stuff months ago.


indeed i would have been happy with the removal of the drone damage and have the distance up to 10ly and have the SMA restirctions lifted... that would have made me super stoked.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-10-30 18:23:53 UTC
Kismeteer wrote:
Altrue wrote:
Just query your user stats on the number of PvP kills involving a Rorqual dealing damages with drones.
BAM. Input solved Big smile


I have a more comprehensive solution.

Count how many drones were launched by rorquals.

Compare to how many light years were jumped by Rorquals in the same period.



Or how many rorquals actually have the industrial core or clone vat bay fit.

If you legitimately are looking for feedback than start a Rorqual feedback thread and commit to making changes in the release after phoebe.
Mordecai Heller
Offstation Fund Administration
#27 - 2014-10-30 18:28:50 UTC
Woah, even titans?

Casual capital losses ahoy!
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2014-10-30 18:30:59 UTC
Greyscale- Seriously, please look at this thread related to CCP's Rorqual Comments at Fanfest/on Twitter:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4539226#post4539226

This is from the beginning of May- nearly 6 months ago.

How many more months will pass before major changes are made to the Rorqual? Even if it takes several more years to balance, there is still a function for the ship in the logistical role it provides. Without the jump distance, the multi billion isk ship turns into purely a POS ornament for mining teams.

Run any poll or report on Rorquals- you will see that the drones are hardly ever used in comparison to the jump distance.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
we landed marginally on the side of [drone bonus].


Please realize that this "landing marginally" on the drone bonus instead of jump range only hurts the players and provides no added benefit whatsoever.
Katrina Bekers
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#29 - 2014-10-30 18:36:40 UTC
Ix Method wrote:
Little Bobby Tables Lol


http://xkcd.com/327/

In case someone didn't get the quote.

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2014-10-30 18:41:10 UTC
Maybe I am an idiot, but I am having a difficult time understanding precisely what fatigue does. (Cooldown is self evident - a player cannot jump until that timer expires, right?) Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?

Thanks.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2014-10-30 18:42:30 UTC
Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
-5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
10% bonus to bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level.
20% bonus to Jump drive distance (Was 20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.)

Role Bonuses:
900% bonus to the range of survey scanners
200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners
99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay
Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously.

Done. Not many has Capital Industrial Ship skill trained beyond 1 or 3 anyway, so now they'll have a reason.
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#32 - 2014-10-30 18:43:13 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:
Maybe I am an idiot, but I am having a difficult time understanding precisely what fatigue does. (Cooldown is self evident - a player cannot jump until that timer expires, right?) Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?

Thanks.


Cool down = Fatigue at the time of jump * 10%

Fatigue is a running counter for calculating how bad cool down will be, it grows exponentially.
Jackson Apollo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-10-30 19:20:18 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:
Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?


It took me a two blogs to work it out. (assuming i even understand)

Jumping without a gate hurts your brain.

Jump Fatigue represents how long the migraine lasts.

The cooldown is 10% of the total fatigue time (or how long the migraine lasts) before you can handle jumping again without your head exploding.

something like that

Jump => pain => time to recover before making the pain last longer.

ok i give up
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-10-30 19:28:03 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?

If your using a BlOps to jump your BR 8 ly, you will receive 10*(1+8*0.1*0.5) minutes (=14) of fatigue.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#35 - 2014-10-30 19:34:32 UTC
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2014-10-30 19:38:53 UTC
Akita T wrote:
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.

I would like to see this actually happen.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2014-10-30 19:38:59 UTC
Akita T wrote:
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.


I don't understand the basis of your argument here, considering that all of the large coalitions have given up vast swaths of space and Phoebe hasn't even hit yet.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#38 - 2014-10-30 19:42:12 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.


Thank you for some feedback.

This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range?

From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead.

Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there?

The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious.

We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped.

*Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed


The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people.

All that said, as previously we're prepared to revisit that decision, but we don't feel like we have a strong enough case for doing so yet.

Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Can we get updated excel spreadsheet on various jump ranges and fatigues and what not, wanna know how this exactly affects my blops and to lazy to do math on my own :)


SDE update should be out before patchday.

Soldarius wrote:
Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?



As per the line about covert portals in the blog, the covert portal bonus multiplies with other bonuses. So, 95% reduction in that case, purely because it keeps the math clean.

MeBiatch wrote:
what about the new tug boat does it also get the 90% reduction treatment. it was not mentioned in the dev blog.


That's because it's scheduled for Rhea in December :)
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-10-30 19:43:29 UTC
Thanks to Jackson Apollo and Opner Dresden.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#40 - 2014-10-30 19:43:34 UTC
Querns wrote:
Akita T wrote:
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.

I would like to see this actually happen.


If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use.