These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Helios Anduath
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#961 - 2015-06-12 21:31:34 UTC
Ponder Yonder wrote:
In order to address these two use cases I would propose that the intended changes apply to FLEET warps only. Leave SQUAD warps as they are. Squad commanders should be able to warp squad to bookmarks, etc., while fleet commanders can only warp to public objects.

This will allow the above two playstyles to continue without adverse effects and will bring additional benefits:
1. Squad commanders get operational responsibility
2. Squad commanders have a role, apart from 'filling a hole in the fleet hierarchy'
3. Squad command becomes a stepping stone on the path to FC.
4. Provides a better distinction of roles in fleets: FC's can focus on strategic decisions, while squad commanders are more focused on tactical decisions.


This actually makes a lot of sense and I quite like it...
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#962 - 2015-06-12 21:33:00 UTC
D'Kmal wrote:
Dunk Dinkle wrote:
...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.


Citation needed.

We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#963 - 2015-06-12 21:37:50 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
D'Kmal wrote:
Dunk Dinkle wrote:
...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.


Citation needed.

We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak.

Given that CCP doesn't publish subscription numbers, I find it difficult to believe you could actually prove this.

Note: peak concurrent user count has poor correlation to subscriber count.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dermeisen
#964 - 2015-06-12 21:38:58 UTC
Servanda wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Leoric Firesword wrote:
Sparrow Creature wrote:
this change will kill wormhole just saying..


not really, after you align to your next site, instead of your FC warping you he gives the command "warp now" or "warp to b" and boom, you're doing the same thing you did before.


you're welcome that I fixed wormholing for you :)



And al the different ship classess arrive in dibs and drabs and are obliterated because there was no logi or support for the logi.

Brilliant.

Or did you forget they all warp at different speeds now? You did, didn't you.....



1. Cloaked alt warps first
2. FC warps Fleet to that alt

Fixed


You are able to warp in a staggered fashion with that in mind and you hadn't forgotten about the session timer when you land on grid. You had, hadn't you......

"Not the Boreworms!"
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#965 - 2015-06-12 21:40:37 UTC
Scott Ormands wrote:
Myself and other FC's already triple box, dont make it even more complicated when it doesn't have to be. Just because there is a way around it doesn't mean they should have to be used


If this gets to be too much for one person to do all by himself, I'm really not sure that's a bad thing.

Marech.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#966 - 2015-06-12 21:46:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
D'Kmal wrote:
Dunk Dinkle wrote:
...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.


Citation needed.

We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak.

Given that CCP doesn't publish subscription numbers, I find it difficult to believe you could actually prove this.

Note: peak concurrent user count has poor correlation to subscriber count.


You cannot release count of subscriptions as they don't reflect to real player count anyway. As many of the accounts are alt accounts.

EVE will have more difficult time to attract new players as existing character base skill sets don't expire.. New players cannot virtually ever get on same level with old player. Plus for many players its impossible thought to even pay for one account. When they figure out you need more than one to succesfully do most of anything they will just quit.

CCP should be worried about this and about keeping the game still attracting for new players.
scotayne hawkins
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#967 - 2015-06-12 21:46:27 UTC
if the problem is with well educted bomber pilots and how they use those bomb's why not just change the dam bomb's, instead of the entire game mechanic alot of us use. i mean the deployable mines was removed cause they was so over powered and the problems they caused.

personally i use 4 accounts in deep space transports and squad warp those around moving feul etc through wh chains. 3 of which have no other use.

so with this in mind if this goes ahead i'd now have to manually warp 4 times per system. i foresee myself and properly many other removing our secondary accounts

so question is how many accounts are alts that rely on squad warps to get all those characters on grid that if this goes ahead is now potentially going to be de-activated.

at a guess i'd guess most ppl have atleast 2 accounts could CCP really afford for 50% of your subscription instantly turn off cause that sounds like redunances to me AGAIN.

Learn from History dont repeat it
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#968 - 2015-06-12 21:57:01 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
D'Kmal wrote:
Dunk Dinkle wrote:
...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.


Citation needed.

We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak.


Citation needed.
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#969 - 2015-06-12 21:58:50 UTC
Crazy Candy wrote:
People need to stop saying this messes up bombing. It doesn't. A competent bombing FC has probes on his bomber, and can just warp down to the bombing spot to check if its good before telling the squad to warp to him. A lot of people were already doing this, anyways. It changes nothing.

If you wanted to nerf bombing, you beefed it again CCP. You just ****** up a ton of other stuff in the process. Good job.



IMHO that is what they want to achieve.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#970 - 2015-06-12 21:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
baltec1 wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:

Can't cloak, will get spotted on d-scan . Targets will be gone.


So fit for warp speed then.

Roll up folks! Here we have a scanning interceptor fit courtesy of baltec1! Apparently a combat prober should now also land tackle (obviously):

[Malediction, Baltec1's Probing Malediction]

Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor I

5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Faint Warp Disruptor I
[Empty Med slot]

Expanded Probe Launcher II
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Small Processor Overclocking Unit II
Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I

As you can see this is a perfect fit for both probing out and tackling ships. The choice of an unbonused hull is deliberate because using a covops to do your scanning is clearly too straightforward for CCP. This is more fun because it takes twice as long to resolve a signature, meaning that you will spend a lot more time in the new map which is just perfect for the task.

Of course it is also perfect for tackle. It has 2.43k EHP, more than enough to survive up to three seconds on grid with any enemy. Pay no attention to those people who say that more than a couple of fitting mods on a ship is bad - they are just failing to adapt.

---

On a more serious note, I often trundle around with my scanning alt in this:

[Cheetah, T2 fit]

Photonic Upgraded Co-Processor
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Inertial Stabilizers II

5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Scan Rangefinding Array II
Scan Pinpointing Array II
Scan Rangefinding Array II

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[Empty High slot]
Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe

Small Warp Core Optimizer II
Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II

(Small Warp Core Optimizer II because Thera.)

It is good at quickly resolving ships and then fleet warps tackle to catch the target. Timing is of the essence. In fact, they almost always get away because they are paying attention to local (null) or watching for probes (wormholes). Occasionally, however, they are a bit slow or hang around in the site too long. And then they get caught. This is balanced.

This game play is ruined with the change. A dedicated scanning alt will no longer be required for my roams because there will be no added advantage of having a fast prober.

Of course I will adapt. But I don't understand the point of ruining my game play when the design goals could be met with more intelligent changes rather than the typical sledgehammer approach.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rayna 4
Perkone
Caldari State
#971 - 2015-06-12 22:00:07 UTC
I don't see how this is going to hinder those alliances that can field larger fleets. They just coordinate better with the extra needed alts from the 50+ players they have in fleet.

Small fleets on the other hand were all the work was done by an FC suddenly have lost an advantage they had over bigger fleets.

ccp may hate bomber runs but I saw a lot of it helped to more equalize the field of small vs large fleets.
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#972 - 2015-06-12 22:00:28 UTC
Tara Read wrote:

I've heard not ONE person praise the icon changes.

I saw a fair number. Here is another ... I like the new, more informative icons.

Marech.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#973 - 2015-06-12 22:07:32 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
Querns wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
D'Kmal wrote:
Dunk Dinkle wrote:
...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.


Citation needed.

We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak.

Given that CCP doesn't publish subscription numbers, I find it difficult to believe you could actually prove this.

Note: peak concurrent user count has poor correlation to subscriber count.


You cannot release count of subscriptions as they don't reflect to real player count anyway. As many of the accounts are alt accounts.

EVE will have more difficult time to attract new players as existing character base skill sets don't expire.. New players cannot virtually ever get on same level with old player. Plus for many players its impossible thought to even pay for one account. When they figure out you need more than one to succesfully do most of anything they will just quit.

CCP should be worried about this and about keeping the game still attracting for new players.


You can do just fine with one account and you can only put so much SP into any one ship so saying new players cannot catch up is a flat out lie.
Lurifax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#974 - 2015-06-12 22:09:18 UTC
Slippery pete's online
Lars Erlkonig
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
#975 - 2015-06-12 22:10:02 UTC
LOW SEC ISSUES

For those of us that play in low sec, these changes cause some issues:

1) I probe out a DED site with my cov-ops that someone else is/may soon be running and warp to the site at 10 or 20 so I don't decloak. Currently any fleet members that try to warp to me at range will just land on the gate at 0 and if they are flying cloaked ships will also decloak. Fleet warping let me get a fleet on the site quickly and stealthily all at once. Any fix for this planned due to the changes?

2) For getting safe in lowsec, people are often using very fast ships, good scan strength/sig radius ratios, and aligned (100mn cruisers/10mn ab garmurs) in safe spots to minimize their risk of being caught. Often the only way to get a tackle on them is to fleet warp to the probe results and hope that you land in time before they burn out of range/off grid. Should people with snakes and a small enough scan sig be impossible to catch to due to the need to double warp to probe results in lowsec now? Are we creating a new no-risk meta for low sec?

3) Fixing fleets is all and good for giant alliances, but for small gang PVP, the ability to warp with the cov-ops is normally necessary to catch canny targets in time. This change removes a lot of risk from low sec...and it needs more risk tbh. Just limit warps to probe results to the squad level and mission fixed. Why use a wrecking ball when a hammer works just fine.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#976 - 2015-06-12 22:11:34 UTC
Rayna 4 wrote:
I don't see how this is going to hinder those alliances that can field larger fleets. They just coordinate better with the extra needed alts from the 50+ players they have in fleet.

Small fleets on the other hand were all the work was done by an FC suddenly have lost an advantage they had over bigger fleets.

ccp may hate bomber runs but I saw a lot of it helped to more equalize the field of small vs large fleets.


One of the most effective bomber FCs also just happens to fly for the group able to field 6 full fleets of subcaps and an entire fleets of supers and titans.
Dermeisen
#977 - 2015-06-12 22:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dermeisen
FT Diomedes wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Q: CCP, this change doesn't create more pilot engagement / participation, the FC will just run another alt that he fleet warps too!
A: That would work sure. But fleets who have members assisting the FC by setting up warpin's, getting tackle, etc. are going to be a lot more effective. We can't force you to participate in the fleet, but we can give an advantage to those that do.


Want to Buy: the FC who currently does not rely on other humans to perform these tasks already.

This strawman that all fleets are composed of a single FC with 255 F1-monkeys is absurd. If that's really what you people think, you should try getting on coalition comms during a large fleet. FC channels are abuzz with information. The main channel is full of people muzzled by the need to pass information.

Sure, in squad sized fleets, everyone can talk and report more, but the same is true in the real world. My Marines don't try to talk over the battalion CO when he issues his orders, but they tell their squad and team leaders what they see going on out on patrol.

Every large fleet I have ever been on has numerous subchannels full of scouts, spies, staging system eyes, backup FC's, FC mentors, capital FC's, etc. The fact that some dude can warp 255 other pilots from point A to point B is not the key to his success. It is the system and organization supporting him.

This system, like nearly every other change over the past year, clearly favors the largest and best organized groups to the detriment of everyone else. The harder you make Eve to play, the more powerful the meta game becomes. The more bureaucracy you require to succeed, the less fun the game becomes.

All you elite PVPers circle-jerking over "now the F1 monkeys will have to have some real skill and we can pwn them with our 1337 h@xor skills" need to remove your craniums from your rectums. You'll still win when the odds are in your favor and you'll still get your faces pushed in when they are not. It will just be slightly more obnoxious than it is now - while Eve as a whole is trending towards fewer active players and more tedium every day.



Interesting but I don't buy it.... Of course it's organisation that wins fights however the rules of any game should accentuate the differences between ability otherwise skill is overwhelmed by other factors. Discipline in fleets is not trivial and F1 monkeys are a thing it's not actually elitist to point that out. Splitting fleets is a highly effective tactic when fighting a numerically superior force and this change amplifies the difficulty of managing a large fleet, undeniably making the value of an alert fleet, and good scouts, more effective than a multi boxer or a drunken roam for instance. Isn't that just as it should be, not that I don't love a drunken roam. I say, not to you, but in general: live with it before you allow yourself to become hysterical and denounce the game.

"Not the Boreworms!"
didthat hurt
ProtoTek Aerospace
Fraternity.
#978 - 2015-06-12 22:14:09 UTC
Rowells wrote:
didthat hurt wrote:
Your initial goal from this was to nerf bombers:

Since when?



Since the initial post on page one, which was quoted in my reply.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#979 - 2015-06-12 22:15:37 UTC
didthat hurt wrote:
Rowells wrote:
didthat hurt wrote:
Your initial goal from this was to nerf bombers:

Since when?



Since the initial post on page one, which was quoted in my reply.


The one that says they are wanting to impact all fleets and gives bombers as just one example?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#980 - 2015-06-12 22:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
didthat hurt wrote:
Rowells wrote:
didthat hurt wrote:
Your initial goal from this was to nerf bombers:

Since when?



Since the initial post on page one, which was quoted in my reply.

The one that literally mentioned it's not just for bombers?