These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#1161 - 2015-06-13 23:20:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:

That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."


I'm still wondering why that was under consideration to begin with.

As far as I can tell this is a problem in the nullsec fleet meta and they are perfectly happy to stuff up fleets everywhere else to fix that problem.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1162 - 2015-06-13 23:29:34 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:

That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."


I'm still wondering why that was under consideration to begin with.

As far as I can tell this is a problem in the nullsec fleet meta and they are perfectly happy to stuff up fleets everywhere else to fix that problem.


What, that people can get fights? If they want fleets to drop on people less quickly, then how about they curb the hilarious speed power creep that has cropped up the past couple of years?

Or would that mean admitting that the interceptor changes were wrong?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#1163 - 2015-06-13 23:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
It looks like Null Sec is going to be too annoying to live in.
Going from a very active logi pilot to being torn between making plans to live in a worm hole (again), run missions in High Sec or quit.
(Edit: Yeah, yeah, usual trolls will urge me to quit Roll )

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#1164 - 2015-06-13 23:47:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:

That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."


I'm still wondering why that was under consideration to begin with.

As far as I can tell this is a problem in the nullsec fleet meta and they are perfectly happy to stuff up fleets everywhere else to fix that problem.


What, that people can get fights? If they want fleets to drop on people less quickly, then how about they curb the hilarious speed power creep that has cropped up the past couple of years?

Or would that mean admitting that the interceptor changes were wrong?

I doubt they have a cohesive plan. Interceptor change and mining signatures being changed to anomalies go in one direction, this goes in the other. Bizarre.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1165 - 2015-06-14 00:01:49 UTC
Zappity wrote:

I doubt they have a cohesive plan. Interceptor change and mining signatures being changed to anomalies go in one direction, this goes in the other. Bizarre.


Gotta agree on that one. It seems like, due to Fozzie's earlier comment, they are just scrambling to make this not look like an obvious sidehanded nerf to bombers.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1166 - 2015-06-14 00:59:18 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Kendarr wrote:
I see that Manfred Sideous has companioned this change as CSM and now no one likes it he is seriously butt hurt.


Confirming. Please someone confirm this confirmation.


I am confirming that Manny confirmed this but not that he was the only one who supported it. That would take a different confirmation.

Yeah, I supported it as well and still do. Yeah the wormhole aspect was discussed and the filthy goon still remembered his roots. No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed.

Oh and for the record? Yeah OGB could go tomorrow and I would cheer it on and this from a guy with all the leadership skills done to V.

Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1167 - 2015-06-14 01:33:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Mike Azariah wrote:
Yeah, I supported it as well and still do. Yeah the wormhole aspect was discussed and the filthy goon still remembered his roots. No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed.


And I suppose that everyone using fleetwarps for things other than major fleet ops can just get shafted, right?

- No more slinging tacklers onto targets
- No more warping your alts to a safespot without ten thousand clicks
- No more catching ships that are rolling safes or simply MWDing in a random direction to evade capture (AFK inty pilots do this all the time)
- No more tackling safe-rolling supercaps in lowsec ever (unless you can gimp-fit an expanded launcher onto a hictor)
- No more warping your alts off a cyno grid when they jump in (using fleetwarp you can currently make them start warping before the UI finishes loading on the jumping clients)

There are a ton of uses for fleetwarps that have nothing to do with moving giant nullsec lemming fleets around. This change sucks. If CCP want to change fleet warfare, then change fleet warfare. Don't screw everyone else for no reason.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1168 - 2015-06-14 02:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
E: oops
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1169 - 2015-06-14 02:15:47 UTC
Why not just get rid of Fleet Commanders and Wing Commanders? Reimburse the SP for those skills. Then increase squad size to 25-50 but that is the largest [only] unit. In short: lower total fleet size from 256 to 25-50. I'm leaning more towards a smaller number than a large one. You limit the power of boosters, broadcasting, fleet warping, watch listing, etc. you increase the number of actual leaders helping pilots make decisions by a factor of 5-10. The blob becomes inherently harder to control, but small gangs are relatively unaffected. Thoughts?

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

Alexis Nightwish
#1170 - 2015-06-14 02:18:22 UTC
So I'm away for a few days and this happens.

CCP, I can understand your goal of removing the effect combat probing had on snipers, and I agree with it, but this change is absolutely terrible for the following reasons:

It will not achieve your goal of "transferring more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members" because FCs will just be forced to dual box a cloaky probe alt to get the warp-in. This will lead to to increased FC burnout as it just adds more frustration to this already tedious role.

It harms mission runners for no reason. People running L4s as a group, or someone multiboxing missions is something that needs to be nerfed? You're just adding frustration to the game.

This will do nothing to bombers. FC will just pilot two bombers: his 'main' for fleet warp command, and his 'alt' for probing/warp-ins. Perhaps if you looked at changing the terrible bomb damage mechanic, bombers wouldn't be such an issue?

This harms small gang roams as FCs w/o the luxury of a cloaky prober alt, will force someone into the role of the 'alt' which is a gloryless, frustrating job that no one wants to do.

This harms WHs because our "gates" (notice this is in quotes Larkin), must be bookmarked because as soon as you leave the system or change ships you lose all your scan results. So just traveling as a group becomes frustrating.

This harms any group that isn't a corp, including NPSI communities, ad-hoc gangs, and alliances. Alliances! These groups cannot share BMs (other than the horribly tedious and frustrating BM copy and jettison method because for some reason our space ships' computers can't transfer this information), and thus have to, yet again, have an alt for warp-ins, or they all get to warp themselves to the previously shared BMs. Cause we all love tedium and busywork in our internet spaceships game!

In any case where your fleet does not have a warp-in alt, but you do have the BMs (such as corporations after waiting the 5ish minutes for the damn things to propagate) everyone will have to warp themselves, which I guess is your goal? But the end result is that we'll have to homogenize our fleets so they warp at the same speed, or use an out of game tool that I'm sure someone will write that gives the timing that ship classes must warp in order to land at the same time. Sounds frustrating and/or tedious.

Are you seeing the theme here?

tl;dr
Doesn't prevent what you want, doesn't get "fleet members more involved", doesn't achieve any of your goals because it can all be bypassed by a cloaky probe alt.
Does add a massive amount of tedium and frustration to a game with a reputation for being tedious and frustrating.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1171 - 2015-06-14 02:26:11 UTC
Tappits wrote:
Miner Hottie wrote:

As one of Eve's most elite players are you willing to help teach Eve newbies?


Yes, yes i am, that's why i am one of the main Dir's in Pandemic horde and have also done some live classes for them. and also almost always online doing stuff for the new beans. maybe you should not try callout out people for not helping new players before finding out the facts of what people do in eve.


Good for you. You have done some (less than the average eve uni lecturer).

I note you left the rest if my comment out. Tacit agreement if there ever was that every thing else I said was right.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#1172 - 2015-06-14 02:34:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed...Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo.

The problem is fleet involvement in nullsec? Then fix fleet involvement in nullsec. This isn't a problem in small gang lowsec, wormholes and your current solution is both a quality of life and a useful feature reduction.

Fixing the problem of nullsec fleet involvement is good. Doing it at the expense of my gameplay isn't. Identify the root of the problem and address it rather than an indiscriminate sledgehammer solution.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Busta Rock
The DawnSoarers
#1173 - 2015-06-14 02:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Busta Rock
I only have issues with the nerfing of fleet warps to bookmarks. a fleet/wing/squad commander should have the ability to make any personal bookmarks he likes public to the fleet he is commanding for that purpose. if you cant deal with the speed at which bombers and other fleets can reposition to perches and other bookmarks, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

along that line of thought, here is a suggestion:

as a posible pair of solutions to the OGB/rolling safes/random 1k+ AB/MWD ships at deep safes - a problem that has greatly annoyed me in the past because those ships are so damn hard to catch with probe ships (the last time I really hunted them was before slinging was possible... how I wish I could do that back then!)

1) Give Interceptors the ability to warp DIRECTLY to Dscan results. The ability to warp directly to Dscan results would allow them to actually DO what their name suggests... INTERCEPT.

2) Give all recons an extra utility high slot and combat probe specific bonuses better than existing covops (which are bonused for both at a lesser value). Being truly competent with combat probes only (alongside their cloaking/Dscan invisibility depending on specific type) would allow them to tackle targets at range without actually having to be superfast to the grid - plus they can actually survive engaging a target long enough for backup to arrive if they bite off more than they can chew, which Interceptors simply cannot do unless they have a numerical advantage. this capability would probably be of most use to the Lachesis and Arazu, with the Huginn and Rapier also being useful in the role, but all recons could be of use to some extent with it.

another possible addition to capability to recons would be to have target signature radius directly affect the effective range of warp disrupters, scramblers and webs. depends on how effective the above new abilities to interceptors and recons were.


I have always been of the opinion that capabilities should be ADDED to enable new evolutions to gameplay, NOT nerfed (or at the very least additions should be made to compensate FOR nerfs), this goes at least as far back as the Great Nano Nerf, where I would have much preferred capability additions to counter nanomachs and the like (been playing the game for 7+ years now, and the moment nanoships got nerfed, I lost all interest in the Machariel... it was my dream ship BECAUSE SPEED)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1174 - 2015-06-14 03:59:18 UTC
Busta Rock wrote:

I have always been of the opinion that capabilities should be ADDED to enable new evolutions to gameplay, NOT nerfed (or at the very least additions should be made to compensate FOR nerfs), this goes at least as far back as the Great Nano Nerf, where I would have much preferred capability additions to counter nanomachs and the like (been playing the game for 7+ years now, and the moment nanoships got nerfed, I lost all interest in the Machariel... it was my dream ship BECAUSE SPEED)


I oppose power creep in general just on principle, but if you can't admit that the nano age was a goddamned nightmare, then I don't know what to tell you.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Busta Rock
The DawnSoarers
#1175 - 2015-06-14 04:04:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I oppose power creep in general just on principle, but if you can't admit that the nano age was a goddamned nightmare, then I don't know what to tell you.


power creep is the way of the world. technology ADVANCES... new capabilities are developed to counter existing paradigms. this nerf is quite literally taking one step forward, THREE steps back. also known as design by lawyers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1176 - 2015-06-14 04:17:10 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed...Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo.

The problem is fleet involvement in nullsec? Then fix fleet involvement in nullsec. This isn't a problem in small gang lowsec, wormholes and your current solution is both a quality of life and a useful feature reduction.

Fixing the problem of nullsec fleet involvement is good. Doing it at the expense of my gameplay isn't. Identify the root of the problem and address it rather than an indiscriminate sledgehammer solution.


They did identify it and its an issue with every fleet everywhere. Its not like this is hard to adapt to.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#1177 - 2015-06-14 04:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed...Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo.

The problem is fleet involvement in nullsec? Then fix fleet involvement in nullsec. This isn't a problem in small gang lowsec, wormholes and your current solution is both a quality of life and a useful feature reduction.

Fixing the problem of nullsec fleet involvement is good. Doing it at the expense of my gameplay isn't. Identify the root of the problem and address it rather than an indiscriminate sledgehammer solution.


They did identify it and its an issue with every fleet everywhere. Its not like this is hard to adapt to.

No, lack of involvement is not 'an issue with every fleet everywhere'. It is not an issue with small gangs in lowsec or wormholes. It is not an issue with highsec mission running or ganking groups. It is certainly not an issue when I am using fleet warp to a signature on an alt.

I do not want to adapt to it. I want them to come up with a better solution that fixes the problem without degrading my game play.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#1178 - 2015-06-14 04:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
I wonder if we make it worse? CCP is renowned for taking critism badly, constructive or otherwise.
If they come up with a horrible idea they will try push it through and bandaid fix it.
If they can't bandaid fix it then they will latch onto the compromise that is closest to their plan, usually suggested by players to reduce the damage.

It seems to be about not losing face. That they have to keep forcing that they are "right" or they might lose morale and confidence.

I probably don't have my finger on it quite right but I think sometimes that we pressure them to be more stupid that usual.
(This is a cut off the nose to spite the face idea.)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1179 - 2015-06-14 04:32:14 UTC
Zappity wrote:

I do not want to adapt to it.


And here we have the real reason as to why people are against this.
Needmore Longcat
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1180 - 2015-06-14 04:45:35 UTC
I thought you guys couldn't top Phoebe. I was wrong.