These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1181 - 2015-06-14 04:54:09 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
1.CCP, I can understand your goal of removing the effect combat probing had on snipers

2.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.

3. It harms mission runners for no reason.

4. This will do nothing to bombers.

5. 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.

6. This harms WHs because . . .

7. [Non-corp] groups cannot share BMs (other than the horribly tedious and frustrating BM copy and jettison method . . .), and thus have to, yet again, have an alt for warp-ins, or they all get to warp themselves to the previously shared BMs.

8. the end result is [how do we make all our fleet be in the same place at the same time?]

9. Are you seeing the theme here?


1. If you think there is only one reason for the change and that every other affect is "collateral damage", that might be why you don't understand or accept it.

2. FC's are not "forced" to do anything. They don't even have to log in. If FCing is too hard for them after this change, then maybe they were not officer material to begin with. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader. It sounds like a lot of the objection to this change is from people who just don't want to accept that cold, harsh reality.

3. PVE'ers, by definition, adapt to their environment. They overcome the challenges their environment imposes on them. If they can't do that, maybe they should go do something easier, like ganking noobs in Uitra.

4. Is it supposed to do something to bombers? Bomber pilots are supposed to be elite operators capable of complex, cooperative behavior. The harder EVE gets, the GREATER the advantage to such players.

5. This does nothing to small gangs. Small gang pilots tend to fall into one of two categories: noobs and elites. Or, in other words, people who are learning how to play the game and people who are good at playing the game. The former were already going to adapt, else how would they be able to play the game at all? The latter are already proven to be capable of adaptation. It's how they got good at the game.
Besides that, I've never been in a small gang that blind-fleet warped to a probe signature, not in high sec, not in low sec, not in null, and not in a wormhole. We ALWAYS sent in a scout.

Whether you think scouting is a glory-less or frustrating job depends on your playstyle. In the non-PVE fleets I've flown in, the scout(s) were usually the better players. Unfortunately, it takes a competent FC to understand their value and employ them effectively, and it takes a competent operator to scout effectively in a hostile environment. One or both of those are lacking in many fleets, but a scout is "the tip of the spear". That's a fun job for some people, for some playstyles.

6. In the wormhole operations I've been involved in, you manage your own bookmarks. Yes, sometimes you can grab/use a corp bookmark or a friend's bookmark, but generally, you didn't stand around twiddling your thumbs while others are doing the work of securing the hole, gathering intel, scanning down signatures, fighting for their lives, etc. And, this is not just so you don't get lost; it's also in case someone else (person_B) gets lost, the closest person or the person in a small ship (person_A) can be tasked to go back and provide a warp-in without one of his responsible, boomark-managing teammates (person_C) having to hold his hand and guide him to the wormhole that he couldn't be arsed to bookmark himself when he came through.
If having to wait an extra 20 seconds for your scout to say "GO!" makes it impossible for you to play in wormholes, you should GTFO of wormholes.

7. [Non-corp] group leaders can share bookmarks with eachother. Then, they can each share bookmarks with their groups. A lazy FC could also just not share bookmarks and just warp ahead of his fleet, who could then warp to him. Then, the person with the bookmarks would only have to share them with the FC . . . wait, I think that was redundant.

8. That is called a "problem". Some types of people are good at figuring out solutions to "problems". When those people are empowered to give other people "commands", they are generally referred to as "commander", not to be confused with the specific rank of Commander which is used in many militaries and other organizations with such hierarchical social structures. When a "commander" is empowered to give orders to a fleet and its members, he/she is called a "fleet commander", generally abbreviated as "FC" in EVE Online.

9. I am seeing a theme and it is this: You are not fleet command material. :-(
Crazy Candy
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#1182 - 2015-06-14 05:24:05 UTC
Reminder that countless players continue to sub to this game to only log in for pings and press F1 when it is needed.

Reminder that if players wish to be more "active" they often start FCing themselves, or seeking out smaller gang play styles.

Reminder that people are clearly contempt pressing F1, as they can do more than press F1 when they feel like it, and this change is unnecessary.
Ayara Itris
Iron.Guard
Fraternity.
#1183 - 2015-06-14 06:12:55 UTC
From a small gang perspective, it kind of ruins stuff as an FC. Before this change, an FC could carry a probe launcher on, say, a Confessor. With these changes, it basically makes it completely impossible for the FC to multitask as a damage + scanner, and forces the fleet to either drop a combat ship if they want to be able to counter people's links, or buy an alt, which is silly.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#1184 - 2015-06-14 06:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dun'Gal
Did some thinking on this and I have one request, but a lot of other things to say as well - so appolgies for the wall of text.

The Request: I would like, explained in detail, all the things that this change is intended to fix. It has been stated that bomber fleets aren't the only reason, and it has been mentioned that there are other considerations here, ie. extreme multiboxers. But other than these cases what exactly is this fixing.

Suggesting that the intention is to prevent fleets from getting onto there targets so quickly seems a bit backwards, considering you promote this game as a PVP game. You would think you would want people fighting more, not less. Because frankly the more you slow down the ability for people to get on there targets, the more likely those targets simply aren't going to be around when they arrive, resulting in less pew.

The claim that you should just warp a scout in first and then warp your fleet to said scout, great, but why should I be forced to do this? If I want to dive head first into a situation where I don't know what I may or may not be landing on, in order to get there faster I should have that option. Avoidance is already far to easy for anyone with half a brain cell, why make it completely idiot proof. That extra 2-3 seconds to land scout, then warp fleet to scout is plenty of time for that target to say, "hell naw" and just warp to a safe/station/pos, whatever.

You made probes visible on dscan quite some time ago to give the bears a chance to see the impending warp-in already. And anyone vigilant enough to be paying attention already warps at the first sign of combat probes on dscan. As it is, you would be lucky to land on them before they leave grid, now you want to give them even more time. (Edit: I suppose you could remove probes from Dscan again to counter balance this.)

I would argue that the fleets in null sec that this is supposedly going to help aren't playing the game right/paying attention. The tools are already there to see when they are going to get dropped on, why aren't they using them? You want to provide more fleet interaction. Get your F1 monkeys watching Dscan for combat probes, or in systems that are too large to scan entirely, have scouts out actively looking for probes in these spaces that aren't dscannable where your fleet is at. Telling the rest of EvE to adapt to a change that has been pushed through to protect your incompetence/laziness as a fc is laughable, especially when the tools to protect or at the very least prepare yourselves, already exist.

This change needs to be scrapped, because at this point without some real examples of exactly what this fixes, all I'm seeing here is a blanket change that does so little to affect what you supposedly want to fix, but destroys/removes interaction and gameplay for a great many more players in your "sandbox."

Again, appologies for the wall of text.
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1185 - 2015-06-14 06:27:11 UTC
IF you really want to let more people take responsibility in the fleet, then you should let the fleet boss to assign the ability of whole fleet warp to other member by flag. NOT your terrible removing **** idea
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1186 - 2015-06-14 06:52:04 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:
I would like, explained in detail, all the things that this change is intended to fix.
. . .
This change needs to be scrapped, because at this point without some real examples of exactly what this fixes, all I'm seeing here is a blanket change that does so little to affect what you supposedly want to fix, but destroys/removes interaction and gameplay for a great many more players in your "sandbox."


Do you see the problem with your thinking?
You DON'T know what this change fixes (supposedly, after an explanation by some of the devs and 60 pages of feedback), but you DO know it doesn't fix that and hurts the the game for more people than it helps.
Your objection is illogical.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1187 - 2015-06-14 07:04:58 UTC
Ayara Itris wrote:
From a small gang perspective, it kind of ruins stuff as an FC. Before this change, an FC could carry a probe launcher on, say, a Confessor. With these changes, it basically makes it completely impossible for the FC to multitask as a damage + scanner, and forces the fleet to either drop a combat ship if they want to be able to counter people's links, or buy an alt, which is silly.


Having one guy doing all the work is the silly thing here.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#1188 - 2015-06-14 07:47:29 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Dun'Gal wrote:
I would like, explained in detail, all the things that this change is intended to fix.
. . .
This change needs to be scrapped, because at this point without some real examples of exactly what this fixes, all I'm seeing here is a blanket change that does so little to affect what you supposedly want to fix, but destroys/removes interaction and gameplay for a great many more players in your "sandbox."


Do you see the problem with your thinking?
You DON'T know what this change fixes (supposedly, after an explanation by some of the devs and 60 pages of feedback), but you DO know it doesn't fix that and hurts the the game for more people than it helps.
Your objection is illogical.

If it is so obvious to you, then please in detail explain what this fixes other than the two things mentioned in my post. I'm fairly certain everyone here would love to be enlightened as to what horribly bad thing, not mentioned, exists in eve that warrants the removal of the ability to warp fleet members to scanned signatures.
Na'hkin Oaks
MASS
Pandemic Horde
#1189 - 2015-06-14 07:50:08 UTC
So basically this is a business decision. Some bright guy decided that they didn't want to increase the ship loss, in fact by not leaving the fleet warp to bookmarks will ultimately cost less to all fleets, because people have lives, and might not make it to the battlefield.

In the end, pilot Joe won't have to buy that plex or 3 because he didn't lose that nestor because he was afk; while his fc warped him into battle. Overall CCP this is a monetarily loss for your company. Less plexes will be purchased.

Just a thought why don't we just nerf everything up a notch or two, then it won't seem so bad, instead of nerfing downward all the time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1190 - 2015-06-14 08:00:13 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:

If it is so obvious to you, then please in detail explain what this fixes other than the two things mentioned in my post. I'm fairly certain everyone here would love to be enlightened as to what horribly bad thing, not mentioned, exists in eve that warrants the removal of the ability to warp fleet members to scanned signatures.


Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.
Solecist Punk
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1191 - 2015-06-14 08:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Punk
With these fleet-changes, it would be impossible for me to move around a fleet of -10.

The possibilities would get reduced to what all the lesser gankers do,
which means only ever having them undock and warp to the scout which sits at the target.

This change completely removes my ability to move around a fleet of -10 on grid,
bouncing between bookmarks. Of course I could share all the bookmarks,
but then it will become virtually impossible to strike onto a target,
as everyone's timing would be completely different.

Simply having an alt who sits at the target is not only sad and boring gameplay,
it would not help in such a case, because there would be no way to have them all land at the same time.


Dear CCP Fozzie, have you ever considered that you are already so "deep into it" that you completely
lost the sense for what is good and right, compared to what is bad and crap?

The CSM member who came up with this was the same who came up with the jump fatigue. Have you
ever considered that this person might not actually have such good ideas? Just because it seems to fix
something, does not mean it actually fixes something.

In this case, you are not fixing anything. In most cases your change can get circumvented,
in other cases it *completely breaks gameplay*. When this happens, what's the point of such a change?

It does not promote the individual at all. Most individuals do not even want to be "promoted". They are
F1 monkeys for a reason ! Have you ever considered that ? This CSM is disconnected with the people
the changes affect. Having few people dictate what happens with the many is completely fine as
long as the many actually want that !

Listening to a few people who *think* this is good just shows how completely disconnected they are,
as they somehow believe they know better for everyone else ! They can not ! People who are
F1 monkeys might even enjoy being F1 monkeys ! Anyone defending this change should ask himself
how he dares to speak for all those who are actually affected ! He can not and should not !

This is a change that, in general, when the majority is against it, that means that it is bad, simply
because the majority of people indeed ARE F1 monkeys and it should be their right to be that way!


I can't shake the feeling you lost a bit of sight there. It's a common psychological effect that affects
anyone who is too long into something. One does not realise that one is losing sight and the
"viewpoint from above". This change is a perfect example. It is disconnected from the people.


I will make sure this CSM member will suffer for this serious crap, legally, within the game's rules.


Thanks.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1192 - 2015-06-14 08:27:08 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:
the removal of the ability to warp [alts] to scanned signatures.


Is that what this is about? Why don't you just SAY that?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1193 - 2015-06-14 08:30:01 UTC
Solecist Punk wrote:
With these fleet-changes, it would be impossible for me to move around a fleet of -10.


Everyone undocks from station, warp to insta undock, fleet warp to scanner at target, gank as normal.
Olivia Velocitas
The Executioners
#1194 - 2015-06-14 08:39:10 UTC
Got to say that I don't think this change has been fully thought through. CCP needs to back up on this one, at least delay it and consider just moving on.

Sorry Fozzie. Don't like this change to something that has existed for years.

NO to this change
Mika Mikone
Disasterpiece LTD
Pandemic Horde
#1195 - 2015-06-14 08:44:30 UTC
Remove fleet warp, add "fleet bookmarks" that every member of the fleet can warp to
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#1196 - 2015-06-14 08:47:11 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Dun'Gal wrote:
the removal of the ability to warp [alts] to scanned signatures.


Is that what this is about? Why don't you just SAY that?

Continue skirting the question, thats fine, it's clear you can't answer it. But to answer yours, no this isn't about warping alts to signatures - but if you must know my reference to signatures would be a scanned ship signatures, and warping a main to said scanned ship. This is my only (personal) use case for the mechanic, but there are many other use cases for this. As I pointed out, if CCP are this intent on removing interaction with players they may as well remove interaction with other players entirely. The only thing in the OP that is succesfully being accomplished is slowing down the rate at which players, can get to other players to shoot, which as I also mentioned provides more protection than what is already provided by halfway diligent directional scanning for probes.

They suggest this will add more interaction to fleets.... for what, one person who is now your warp-in. Woopy doo, great job at getting the rest of the fleet involved. F1 monkeys are just as capable of pressing the one button it takes to warp to a destination as they are capable of pressing F1 (most of them anyway.) You are creating precisely zero extra interaction than what already exists, and they are creating an extra step/extra time for fleets to get on there targets that's completely unneccessary.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1197 - 2015-06-14 08:50:38 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Dun'Gal wrote:
the removal of the ability to warp [alts] to scanned signatures.


Is that what this is about? Why don't you just SAY that?

Continue skirting the question, thats fine, it's clear you can't answer it. But to answer yours, no this isn't about warping alts to signatures - but if you must know my reference to signatures would be a scanned ship signatures, and warping a main to said scanned ship. This is my only (personal) use case for the mechanic, but there are many other use cases for this. As I pointed out, if CCP are this intent on removing interaction with players they may as well remove interaction with other players entirely. The only thing in the OP that is succesfully being accomplished is slowing down the rate at which players, can get to other players to shoot, which as I also mentioned provides more protection than what is already provided by halfway diligent directional scanning for probes.

They suggest this will add more interaction to fleets.... for what, one person who is now your warp-in. Woopy doo, great job at getting the rest of the fleet involved. F1 monkeys are just as capable of pressing the one button it takes to warp to a destination as they are capable of pressing F1 (most of them anyway.) You are creating precisely zero extra interaction than what already exists, and they are creating an extra step/extra time for fleets to get on there targets that's completely unneccessary.


Other way around there buddy. This change means you have to interact with more people not less.
Lucas Quaan
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#1198 - 2015-06-14 09:37:29 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
- No more tackling safe-rolling supercaps in lowsec ever (unless you can gimp-fit an expanded launcher onto a hictor)

[Onyx, low-sec hunter]
Internal Force Field Array I
Power Diagnostic System II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Prototype Cloaking Device I
Warp Disruption Field Generator II, Focused Warp Disruption Script
Cynosural Field Generator I
Expanded Probe Launcher I, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I

Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II

Gimp not included.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#1199 - 2015-06-14 09:41:00 UTC
I suppose your idea of "more" interaction is telling your fleet mates to warp, instead of doing it for them?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1200 - 2015-06-14 09:49:51 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Dun'Gal wrote:
I suppose your idea of "more" interaction is telling your fleet mates to warp, instead of doing it for them?


Nah, waiting for one guy to slap wwww in fleet and the FC warps everyone anyway.

Brilliant depth added to combat, fleet still moved by one guy (the 'big' problem...I see no one is pushing for the anchoring abilities orbit/KaR to go though) and everything else takes the hit along the way.

As folks are keen to point out - warping fleet to a player is easy and basically what happens today in bigger fights so nothing changes in said problem area. Side effected areas be damned.