These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#101 - 2014-10-31 01:44:28 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:


What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?

There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.

And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?

If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.


I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).

This is a pretty crucial ship, and I would suggest it should be top priority along with the recon / blacktops / T3 rebalance before any other changes are looked at. A lot of people are waiting in anticipation for these changes.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#102 - 2014-10-31 01:46:13 UTC
Just going to say for the record, these changes are terrible. Jump fatigue combined with extreme jump range reductions is an excessively drastic change in gameplay. These changes are a quick and cheap way to fix another problem of ship classes needing balanced that have not been addressed(primarily carriers multirole abilities and the ability for titans to daisy chain bridges across new eden). Anyways this patch is going to have a minor break period in the current nullsec stagnation while things reorganize. Once people get settled in its going to be even more stagnant than it was before since you've overly limited the ability to travel.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2014-10-31 02:58:10 UTC
Morn Hylund wrote:
If the usual gaggle of whiners can only come up with complaining about Rorqual drones, I would like to say the long needed projection nerf is a smashing success.



Prettymuch this. Complaining about an absolute non-issue.

While the advantage of my JDC5 on all my cap pilots feels lessened, (Oh well, boo hoo), changes look to have been adjusted to a good place. Especially considering when the goons start ferrying everyone about in t1 industrials, that can get dealt with in december.
JamnOne
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2014-10-31 03:17:02 UTC
Remember when Caps were allowed in hi sec space and then one night they all disappeared. Now several years later you want to bring caps back into hi sec. Sweet!

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#105 - 2014-10-31 04:36:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#106 - 2014-10-31 04:41:18 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot?
Lol, you sound like your really happy with yourself for thinking of a clever workaround. But what you said would mean they'd need a character and a capital ship in each area they want to operate, which is pretty much what the changes are meant to achieve. So hardly power projection in the current sense.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#107 - 2014-10-31 05:00:42 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot?

Here's a thought: CCP could make this game subscriber based so that it would be way too expensive to do this.
Oh wait.
OldWolf69
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2014-10-31 05:04:53 UTC
Magnificient. I love to see how CCP resolved the "game being too small" problem by making us smaller, not the map bigger. Hallelujah on Seagull's new space anyway. Rest are details.
Still fun too see how many people got blinded by those details. And absolutely predictible. LolLolLol
Grats CCP. At least once you managed to "outsmart" the playerbase. Or, ohwell, at least a distinctive part of it.Lol
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#109 - 2014-10-31 05:18:59 UTC
OldWolf69 wrote:
Grats CCP. At least once you managed to "outsmart" the playerbase.

heh heh

Only possible response

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Fraucha Tanakoh
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2014-10-31 05:28:24 UTC
Sorry, you lost me at "mental fatigue" Shocked

I was under the impression that ships used computers to calculate jumps.

If we are factoring Mental Fatigue....I would be ok if this were the DUNE universe where Navigators actually calculate and move the ships with their minds. So, far, you have not given adequate reason why a human, pushing a few buttons on a computer would suffer such mental fatigue.

Had you said that the SHIP'S Engines need some sort of cool down time, yeah, I would go for that. But, you have already blamed the entire thing on the living being not the machine. So based on the human factor, the whole fatigue process is faulty. Seriously, folks, you run a science fiction universe and yet you totally play the "fantasy mana' card Question
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#111 - 2014-10-31 05:47:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.



In the discussion thread, I don't remember if there was any other Rorqual pilots doing so, but I personally stated a desire to keep the drone bonus over the jump range, for reasons that the range is going to get reduced regardless, whereas the drone bonus will be highly beneficial when the rorqual is worth using in a boat, so flip flopping the bonus off and on again seems counter-productive. Given that most rorqual pilots do not actually use their rorqual for long distance hauling, and that a jump plus a few gates or two jumps (with 90% fatigue reduction) will cover most if not all distances for alternative mining sites you'd swap back and forth between, I can't see the 10ly bonus being of much necessity, beyond trying to move your rorqual in or out of a region.

TL:DR I am in favour of keeping the bonus over the range, and argued so in the previous discussion thread.
Terraj Oknatis
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-10-31 06:18:48 UTC
Gate movement
Carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers, titans and capital industrials can now use stargates, provided they do not lead into a highsec system.
We want to reduce the usage of jump drives (see below), but we don’t also want to lock ships into particular systems. We also want to encourage more gate-to-gate traffic and allow more ships to use gates!


We’d like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but it’s a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec.ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked


Ok so basically Rorquals will have their place on the field in high sec asteroid belts. Im sure the whalers are going to love this!TwistedEvil
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#113 - 2014-10-31 06:26:07 UTC
"We’d like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but it’s a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec."

EVERYBODY PANIC
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#114 - 2014-10-31 07:06:06 UTC
Fraucha Tanakoh wrote:
Sorry, you lost me at "mental fatigue" Shocked

I was under the impression that ships used computers to calculate jumps.

If we are factoring Mental Fatigue....I would be ok if this were the DUNE universe where Navigators actually calculate and move the ships with their minds. So, far, you have not given adequate reason why a human, pushing a few buttons on a computer would suffer such mental fatigue.

Had you said that the SHIP'S Engines need some sort of cool down time, yeah, I would go for that. But, you have already blamed the entire thing on the living being not the machine. So based on the human factor, the whole fatigue process is faulty. Seriously, folks, you run a science fiction universe and yet you totally play the "fantasy mana' card Question



he basically made it up since ccp can no longer afford lore writers and laid them off.. get ready.. cause we're about to have permadeath and dark elf destroyers.. titans are going to be able to jump to jove space.. which basically is going to be the unicorn(cow) level.. watch, wait and see..

I totally agree with you on your comment.
iwannadig
Doomheim
#115 - 2014-10-31 08:09:59 UTC
Still bad formattings. Remove italics, this text fills about 90% of content.
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad
United Federation of Conifers
#116 - 2014-10-31 08:29:20 UTC
Quote:

Bobby Tables makes three 5LY jumps in his Archon.
When he makes the first jump, he has no fatigue or cooldown, so incurs the minimum fatigue value (10 * (1+5) = 60 minutes) and the minimum cooldown value (1+5 = 6 minutes).
When he makes the second jump, he has waited for 6 minutes, so his fatigue is 54 minutes before the jump, and 54 * (1 + 5) = 324 minutes after. His cooldown would be 5.4 minutes (10% of fatigue), but the minimum is 6 minutes so he has another 6 minute cooldown.
When he makes the third jump, his fatigue is 318 minutes (waiting 6 minutes again), and becomes 318 * (1 + 6) = 1908 minutes. His cooldown is 31.8 minutes, or 31 minutes 48 seconds.


There's a typo in the bold section.

My understanding is that it should be 318 * (1+5) = 1908, but I suppose the intention could be that it's 318 * (1+6) = 2226. I sincerely hope it's the first one because otherwise my understanding of this mechanic has just gone out the window.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#117 - 2014-10-31 10:06:04 UTC
kiu Nakamura wrote:
Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19

1) Covert

Quote:
Ships using a Covert Jump Portal similarly gain a 50% reduction to effective distance traveled for that jump; this multiplies with other similar bonuses.

So a Blockade Runner being BLOPSed to a covert cyno has a 95% distance bonus?

2) Fatigue in minutes
As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for.

3) Max time
Nullarbor mentioned a fatigue cap of 30days, but this isnt mentioned in the latest devblog. Is this no longer the case?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2jwwn9/jump_fatigue_calculator/clg0a2w

4) Shameless plug
Checkout http://fatigue.501gu.de it should be matching the latest devblog.


1) Yes, as answered earlier :)

2) If we did that, the math is no longer straightforward above 10 minutes, because at 11 minutes we're displaying 1 minute but going to 66 minutes after a 5LY jump.

3) Yes, I'll get that edited in.

Darius Caliente wrote:
Quote:

Bobby Tables makes three 5LY jumps in his Archon.
When he makes the first jump, he has no fatigue or cooldown, so incurs the minimum fatigue value (10 * (1+5) = 60 minutes) and the minimum cooldown value (1+5 = 6 minutes).
When he makes the second jump, he has waited for 6 minutes, so his fatigue is 54 minutes before the jump, and 54 * (1 + 5) = 324 minutes after. His cooldown would be 5.4 minutes (10% of fatigue), but the minimum is 6 minutes so he has another 6 minute cooldown.
When he makes the third jump, his fatigue is 318 minutes (waiting 6 minutes again), and becomes 318 * (1 + 6) = 1908 minutes. His cooldown is 31.8 minutes, or 31 minutes 48 seconds.


There's a typo in the bold section.

My understanding is that it should be 318 * (1+5) = 1908, but I suppose the intention could be that it's 318 * (1+6) = 2226. I sincerely hope it's the first one because otherwise my understanding of this mechanic has just gone out the window.


Should be 5 not 6, fixing this.
kiu Nakamura
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#118 - 2014-10-31 10:51:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
kiu Nakamura wrote:
Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19

2) Fatigue in minutes
As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for.



2) If we did that, the math is no longer straightforward above 10 minutes, because at 11 minutes we're displaying 1 minute but going to 66 minutes after a 5LY jump.



Makes sense. How about dimming the timer icon once it has 10m left?
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2014-10-31 11:42:22 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Yup, no part of EVE is sufficiently self-sufficient to justify nerfing JFs yet. That's a thing we'd have to change before any further JF adjustments.


In another thread you mentioned looking into the high-volume sov structures (ihubs and upgrades) to allow smaller entities a chance to move them into null-sec without requiring freighter routes through hostile space. The obvious solutions here are some combination of decreasing their volumes, and adding blueprints for items currently only seeded in empire (ihub upgrades).

Are you considering implementing these changes, and if so is there a rough time scale for when to expect them?
LTC Vuvovich
Old-Timers Department
GF Company
#120 - 2014-10-31 12:01:39 UTC
Personally speaking, I think the whole lot of peoples at CCP have lost their ever-loving minds. It has become increasing apparent to me with each and every major upgrade, that CCP's idea of improving game play has become more and more like turning our little 'sandbox' into a box full of quicksand.

Lets forget already how LONG it takes to move around EVE as it is before the Phoebe release.... oh and YES... I wanna move my capital ships through any number of star gates packed to the gills with PVP'ers, aggros, and anyone else willing to lay in wait to blow them up.

If you read and believe everything in these DEV blogs regarding game improvements, you are liable to miss the underlying reason for most the changes that come down the pike. If you look a little deeper, beneath all the rhetoric... it may surprise you to learn that the reason most of this stuff happens is to maximize the carnage carried out in this game. My Dad always told me... if you don't understand something... just follow the money, and in this game... that money is invariably translated into the game's economy.

So it stands to reason following this train of thought, that the real purpose behind dragging us ALL through the quagmire has everything to do with reducing the current flow of building wealth in this game or to create just enough 'cause and effect' for reducing what must astronomical amounts stockpiled material goods and inventory which has been building up ever since the 'big bang theory'. As I said before... Capital ships and star gates equal complete and utter destruction for anyone silly enough to attempt it... as opposed to waiting forever to make repeated jumps from here to there. Hmm some choice eh? Seems to me we are being told to like it or lump it.

To some of you, this may all seem like wild conjecture... and maybe it is... but if it is true... then don't you think there is an easier way to achieve maximum carnage? Well of course there is and here it is. GET RID OF CLOAKING SHIPS. Think about that... oh yeah... you can run, but you cannot hide.