These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[AEGIS] Fleet Warp Changes - Please see devblog!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#821 - 2015-06-12 16:08:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Elana Apgar wrote:
Dear CCP Larkin and CCP Fozzie,

This is game breaking for W-Space.

And here are the two main reasons:

The main game breaking reason is:

When travelling in W-Space AS A FLEET you almost always have to Fleet Warp from a bookmark to travel from Wormhole to Wormhole until you get to your destination Wormhole. Sometimes you engage hostiles on a wormhole, other times you Fleet Warp to a specific location, whether it be a safe, bounce off of a tower, a tractor unit/wreck, or even a friendly tower.

If we cannot move as a fleet, this will absolutely break Fleet engagements in W-Space. Just like in Null-Sec it is important to move as a fleet, but unlike Null Sec we do not have Gates on our overview or Stations on our overview. We use bookmarks for safes, wormholes, and POS'.

How can you seriously expect us to do anything in a coordinated manner if we cannot warp as a group? Have you even been involved in wormhole fleet fights to see how it all works? If you'd like specific examples of how various wormhole engagements would be impossible, I'd be more then happy to supply them.

The second reason:

When in wormhole space, you sometimes have to combat scan a small ship to kill him. And often times you need to "throw" a tackle ship at that ship you are combat scanning. With these changes it will be near impossible to catch a small ship because by the time your combat scan ship lands the target will quite possibly be gone, or if you tackle in the scan ship, it might not survive until help arrives.

I am strongly URGING you to reconsider how this change will IRREPARABLY DAMAGE W-Space before implementing this. W-Space in many ways is struggling, and this could very well destroy it. I really don't understand why CCP feels the need to have all changes in the game revolve around Null Sec.

Thank you for your time.



one pilot in a fast interceptor fixes your problem.


As has already been mentioned, an interceptor with no probing bonus is your probing ship now or do I need 3 people to do what used to be done by 1? Bye, bye small gang PvP in WHs.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#822 - 2015-06-12 16:09:14 UTC
Nice change

Also remember this will affect you but also the enemy you are fighting...

Next... "anchoring" nerf if that is possible Lol

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#823 - 2015-06-12 16:13:45 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Cross-posting what I believe would be a good compromise in this matter

Basically, the idea is to introduce a delay or "spool up" (say 5-15 seconds or so) to group warping depending on the size of the group. The delay for fleet warping would be larger than the delay for wing warping, which in turn would be larger than the time it takes to enter a squad warp. Add to that, there would be a prominent visual effect in order to help opponents react to an imminent group warp.

Pros:


  • Clean solution, easy to understand. A group can warp to anything that an individual could warp to, but with a certain penalty. Makes for in interesting choice!
  • Individual warping/piloting would be much faster and well organised groups more effective, thus "more individual fleet member participation" would likely be achieved.
  • The downsides for group warps would be quite significant:
    • Arrow The visual effect would warn a kiting / sniping fleet of an incoming fleet.
    Arrow If a fleet was preparing to leave the scene via fleet warp, the opposing group could spread points and/or warp a dictor on top of them to keep them on the grid.
    Arrow An FC could no longer just insta-save his entire fleet without other pilots' involvement
  • Last, but not least, the gazillion other (legitimate) use cases for group warps wouldn't be completely screwed.


Questions:


  • Would the visual effect show on a cloaked fleet?
  • Would ships align during spool up or after?


Bombers, apparently one the primary reasons for the planned changes, would need a sensible rebalancing effort at the same time. This goes without saying, the details, however, belong in another discussion.

You guys really don't want your fleet members to think on their own do you? Straight
Delucian
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#824 - 2015-06-12 16:16:20 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Cross-posting what I believe would be a good compromise in this matter

Basically, the idea is to introduce a delay or "spool up" (say 5-15 seconds or so) to group warping depending on the size of the group. The delay for fleet warping would be larger than the delay for wing warping, which in turn would be larger than the time it takes to enter a squad warp. Add to that, there would be a prominent visual effect in order to help opponents react to an imminent group warp.

Pros:


  • Clean solution, easy to understand. A group can warp to anything that an individual could warp to, but with a certain penalty. Makes for in interesting choice!
  • Individual warping/piloting would be much faster and well organised groups more effective, thus "more individual fleet member participation" would likely be achieved.
  • The downsides for group warps would be quite significant:
    • Arrow The visual effect would warn a kiting / sniping fleet of an incoming fleet.
    Arrow If a fleet was preparing to leave the scene via fleet warp, the opposing group could spread points and/or warp a dictor on top of them to keep them on the grid.
    Arrow An FC could no longer just insta-save his entire fleet without other pilots' involvement
  • Last, but not least, the gazillion other (legitimate) use cases for group warps wouldn't be completely screwed.


Questions:


  • Would the visual effect show on a cloaked fleet?
  • Would ships align during spool up or after?


Bombers, apparently one the primary reasons for the planned changes, would need a sensible rebalancing effort at the same time. This goes without saying, the details, however, belong in another discussion.

You guys really don't want your fleet members to think on their own do you? Straight


Want to and "Can" are two differnt concepts!
Ralen Zateki
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#825 - 2015-06-12 16:18:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralen Zateki
Querns wrote:
Ralen Zateki wrote:

I figured all that was a safe assumption. But let me spell it out so that you don't have to think too hard:

Lots of change right now as it is, peeps still curious about how Fozzie sov will play out and be actually implemented, lots of uncertainty about super cap future. From a messaging perspective I think CCP lost their focus on this one and didn't think through the angles before rushing to conclusions and a delivery date. Seems that's a waste of resources no?

Or is that too specious for you still?

Yes. You're still assuming that developer time at CCP is completely fungible, and that work in one department somehow necessarily detracts from another.


Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm saying its a messaging issue - bad mechanics aside - that conveys a perception of a lack of focus and concern for vetting given the context of all other change going on.

Despite your assumptions I'm generally aware that multi million dollar organizations are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time...
Ripblade Falconpunch
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#826 - 2015-06-12 16:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripblade Falconpunch
Manfred Sideous wrote:
+1 this is a excellent change that will help to open up combat/fleet tactics. I supported and pushed hard for this.


In your opinion. And the 42 pages of mostly negative feedback seem to think that by and large, your opinion sucks almost as much as your attitude towards people with different opinions.

Sadly there's no mechanic for impeaching CSM members - because you and most of your brethren would be on the docket right now after the buggy / broken / terrible map, the "new and improved" icons, and now this.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#827 - 2015-06-12 16:22:02 UTC
Ralen Zateki wrote:
Querns wrote:
Ralen Zateki wrote:

I figured all that was a safe assumption. But let me spell it out so that you don't have to think too hard:

Lots of change right now as it is, peeps still curious about how Fozzie sov will play out and be actually implemented, lots of uncertainty about super cap future. From a messaging perspective I think CCP lost their focus on this one and didn't think through the angles before rushing to conclusions and a delivery date. Seems that's a waste of resources no?

Or is that too specious for you still?

Yes. You're still assuming that developer time at CCP is completely fungible, and that work in one department somehow necessarily detracts from another.


Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm saying its a messaging issue - bad mechanics aside - that conveys a lack of focus and concern for vetting given the context of all other change going on.

Despite your assumptions I'm generally aware that multi million dollar organizations are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time...

Vetting by whom? The community? Because that falls under the purvey of the second mistake: requiring every niggling issue to be solved before any change can be moved forward.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#828 - 2015-06-12 16:23:36 UTC
Ripblade Falconpunch wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:
+1 this is a excellent change that will help to open up combat/fleet tactics. I supported and pushed hard for this.


In your opinion. And the 42 pages of mostly negative feedback seem to think that by and large, your opinion sucks.

Sadly there's no mechanic for impeaching CSM members - because you and most of your brethren would be on the docket right now after the buggy / broken / terrible map, the "new and improved" icons, and now this.

You have a very strange view of how the CSM works that is wrong in more than one way.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#829 - 2015-06-12 16:24:25 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
I guess I just don't understand what this goal achieves:
Quote:

The goal of these changes is to encourage more individual fleet member participation and reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets (e.g bombers)


Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't create more engagement.
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change any imbalances or fleet metas
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change anything of any other relevance other than to add annoyance to almost everyone in game.


Besides, if the goal is JUST to reduce speed of fleet to target, then why not just make all ships in fleet warp fly at a given slow speed like 1AU a sec... It would be really helpful if when you talk about changes you talk about why you have your goal and what the end game actually is.

I daresay their opinion is that combat probing allows fleets to engage too quickly. You're falling into the trap of commoditizing Eve gameplay under the monkey filth that is the contemporary use of the word "content."

Also, reducing the power of bombers almost certainly will allow the fleet meta to shift, as fleet meta is currently dominated by ships whose vulnerability to bombs is at a minimum.


Unless you're in a carrier, if you're paying attention you should be able to notice combat probes. Messing with Fleet Warp mechanics and breaking W-Space is not the way to solve the problem of people not paying attention.
Abla Tive
#830 - 2015-06-12 16:24:32 UTC
Between industry and market work, I run hi sec missions with an alt.
I don't look forward to PVP and take the usual precautions against it.

This change will slow down my missioning (as I warp the mission holder to the gate and then warp the alt to the gate)

It simply adds a pointless step to the process.
I.e. it adds no fun or challenge.
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#831 - 2015-06-12 16:27:36 UTC
Rekatan wrote:
Please consider the option presented by abdel_abu on Reddit at http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/39kcrq/fleet_warp_nerf_alternative_delayed_warp_spool_up/

This is seriously valuable feedback, which provides a happy compromise while adding so much potential intensity to the game, rather than headache.


This is another knee jerk and is a fix for a fix, so likely to have even more unintended consequences. Interesting idea, but it doesn't fix bombers or combat probes, the stated cause of the problem.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#832 - 2015-06-12 16:30:09 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
Between industry and market work, I run hi sec missions with an alt.
I don't look forward to PVP and take the usual precautions against it.

This change will slow down my missioning (as I warp the mission holder to the gate and then warp the alt to the gate)

It simply adds a pointless step to the process.
I.e. it adds no fun or challenge.


So it makes multiboxing less attractive for farmers.

At the risk of repeating myself:
Op Success

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#833 - 2015-06-12 16:30:34 UTC
Elana Apgar wrote:
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
I guess I just don't understand what this goal achieves:
Quote:

The goal of these changes is to encourage more individual fleet member participation and reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets (e.g bombers)


Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't create more engagement.
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change any imbalances or fleet metas
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change anything of any other relevance other than to add annoyance to almost everyone in game.


Besides, if the goal is JUST to reduce speed of fleet to target, then why not just make all ships in fleet warp fly at a given slow speed like 1AU a sec... It would be really helpful if when you talk about changes you talk about why you have your goal and what the end game actually is.

I daresay their opinion is that combat probing allows fleets to engage too quickly. You're falling into the trap of commoditizing Eve gameplay under the monkey filth that is the contemporary use of the word "content."

Also, reducing the power of bombers almost certainly will allow the fleet meta to shift, as fleet meta is currently dominated by ships whose vulnerability to bombs is at a minimum.


Unless you're in a carrier, if you're paying attention you should be able to notice combat probes. Messing with Fleet Warp mechanics and breaking W-Space is not the way to solve the problem of people not paying attention.

Bombers don't really strike at disconnected W-space farming groups. They attack large fleets, where the presence of combat probes is both assured and in numbers precluding easy identification of their owner.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#834 - 2015-06-12 16:31:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Elsa Hayes wrote:
Eve has been dumbed down greatly over the years and it is really laughable that every attempt to avert that trend gets met with fierce resistance. Do you people know how the game was in 2006/7? With no easy probing and none of the other shenanigans?

If you wanted to get a warp in on someone you had to get someone there first!
So if memory serves me right this is just a step closer to how EvE used to be and a good one at that!




Uh huh. See, the thing about this point is what is defined as complex or difficult or "elite gameplay" in EVE is, when thrown into relief against other twitch style games, still laughably simple and boring by comparison (even after this change or others like it). But, EVE has always got around this by never competing with them in the first place, instead relying on the strategy/planning/rock-paper-scissor model, even distinguishing and promoting itself on this fact.

Now, if you really want to go further and further down that road the question inevitably becomes; if I wanted to play this sort of game, why wouldn't I just leave EVE and go and play something that not only already does it, but does it so much better in every conceivable way? Why would I play a "worse version of Elite" when I can just go and play...the actual Elite/SC/[insert future title here]?

In keeping with the EVE model, all that will happen is this problem will be solved, in a rockpapersciccor fashion with PL creating the ideal probing ships/ship (or maybe something from the theorycrafting already begun in this thread), with the optimal fit and the optimal tactic, which trickles down to every other alliance and is once again just part-of-the-furniture. Leading to people complaining that "fleet probing is boring and repetitive and requires no skill, CCP pls fix" in 2018, because for some unknown reason they insist on playing a game whose fundamental design they do not like. (That's if FC's don't use their alts, which they will).
Kane Fenris
NWP
#835 - 2015-06-12 16:32:33 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
Have you considered making the game more fun for a change



THIS!
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#836 - 2015-06-12 16:33:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Elana Apgar wrote:
Dear CCP Larkin and CCP Fozzie,

This is game breaking for W-Space.

And here are the two main reasons:

The main game breaking reason is:

When travelling in W-Space AS A FLEET you almost always have to Fleet Warp from a bookmark to travel from Wormhole to Wormhole until you get to your destination Wormhole. Sometimes you engage hostiles on a wormhole, other times you Fleet Warp to a specific location, whether it be a safe, bounce off of a tower, a tractor unit/wreck, or even a friendly tower.

If we cannot move as a fleet, this will absolutely break Fleet engagements in W-Space. Just like in Null-Sec it is important to move as a fleet, but unlike Null Sec we do not have Gates on our overview or Stations on our overview. We use bookmarks for safes, wormholes, and POS'.

How can you seriously expect us to do anything in a coordinated manner if we cannot warp as a group? Have you even been involved in wormhole fleet fights to see how it all works? If you'd like specific examples of how various wormhole engagements would be impossible, I'd be more then happy to supply them.

The second reason:

When in wormhole space, you sometimes have to combat scan a small ship to kill him. And often times you need to "throw" a tackle ship at that ship you are combat scanning. With these changes it will be near impossible to catch a small ship because by the time your combat scan ship lands the target will quite possibly be gone, or if you tackle in the scan ship, it might not survive until help arrives.

I am strongly URGING you to reconsider how this change will IRREPARABLY DAMAGE W-Space before implementing this. W-Space in many ways is struggling, and this could very well destroy it. I really don't understand why CCP feels the need to have all changes in the game revolve around Null Sec.

Thank you for your time.



one pilot in a fast interceptor fixes your problem.


No, it won't. When you are attacking at tower in W-Space, and need to warp to bounces AS A FLEET a fast tackle interceptor won't help. When you are warping a fleet from a hostile tower or wormhole AS A FLEET to a safe/friendly tower, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are running capital escalation sites in a C5 or C6 and you need to warp back to the friendly POS AS A FLEET, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are fighting off of a tower with a hostile fleet and need to warp to a safe spot as A FLEET fast tackle won't work, because it could very well be dead. Fast tackle might be the answer for everything in Null Sec, but it certainly isn't in W-Space.
Col North Chanlin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#837 - 2015-06-12 16:36:01 UTC
Just a request; Can you please disclose how much the Nullsec funders paid for the further killing of W-Space life? X
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#838 - 2015-06-12 16:36:33 UTC
Elana Apgar wrote:
No, it won't. When you are attacking at tower in W-Space, and need to warp to bounces AS A FLEET a fast tackle interceptor won't help. When you are warping a fleet from a hostile tower or wormhole AS A FLEET to a safe/friendly tower, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are running capital escalation sites in a C5 or C6 and you need to warp back to the friendly POS AS A FLEET, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are fighting off of a tower with a hostile fleet and need to warp to a safe spot as A FLEET fast tackle won't work, because it could very well be dead. Fast tackle might be the answer for everything in Null Sec, but it certainly isn't in W-Space.


Warp to ceptor, bounce to pos by warping yourself?
Suspicious Tubesteak
Doomheim
#839 - 2015-06-12 16:37:04 UTC
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:
Querns wrote:
Naglerr wrote:

By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.

Adapt.

Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.


I would be perfectly happy to adapt to a mechanic that has at least some positive impact. This change is one that simply makes more burdensome the same tasks I've previously had to complete in order to earn kills. I guess I'm just not understanding how literally removing functionality from a product is supposed to make it more appealing to the customers of said product. Can you explain that one to me Querns?

This change has plenty of positive impact -- it severely diminishes the efficacy of bombers, whose omnipresence choked off available fleet comps to those that could either not be caught, or had small enough signature radii to shrug off bombing runs. Assuming workarounds are not found, we could see the resurgence of shield doctrines for subcaps. This returns a whole host of ships to combat effectiveness, which, to me, is a win.


So why not just fix bombers and/or bomb damage application then?
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#840 - 2015-06-12 16:42:53 UTC
Leeluvv wrote:
Hendrink Collie wrote:
Generally I am for these changes. I think it will add some interesting dynamics and will open up doctrine choices that were over-shadowed with the current META of overpowered probing/fleet warp mechanics. There is one thing I'd like to change though:

Only in wormhole space, allow for fleet warps to cosmic signatures. Currently these changes disproportional affect wormholers, and I believe the proposed changes wouldn't benefit overall tactics in wormhole space compared to everywhere else.



If you have to compromise the implementation, then the solution you have chosen to implement is flawed and not actually fit for purpose. This is the classic case of a solution looking for a problem.


... isn't that the whole idea of feedback, to find possible issues with the idea and to give ways to fix the issues? I know it's popular just to lay on the floor kicking and screaming, but I find it more constructive to give feedback that could help groups of people that are oppressively affected by changes. I believe what I have said is a good compromise. What say you?