These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tobias Frank
#1221 - 2015-06-14 12:18:54 UTC
Rat Scout wrote:

For every person claiming this is a negative change there is also a person who then benefits from this change. . . by proxy


Except that people who like this change aren't complaining here.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1222 - 2015-06-14 12:19:34 UTC
Sumeragy wrote:


Yeah but fixing something but destroying everything else ehm where did i saw this once ohhh wait here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9Xk0Lln5Y


The fix is to make things harder for fleets.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1223 - 2015-06-14 12:22:06 UTC
Zappity wrote:

No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.

Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.


And here you go off the deep end again with your doom mongering. Scouts being needed for fleets is not the end of the world, if you don't have the numbers then go hire some newbees from a starter system.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1224 - 2015-06-14 12:32:00 UTC
Dun'Gal wrote:
Hey guess what else, this guy already has the tools to see probes on scan, and make a decision as to what he wants to do, flee or fight.


Cool, then, this "change" doesn't actually change anything. So, what's the objection? 60+ pages of despair and sadness, for what?

Dun'Gal wrote:
Arguing that blowing other people up is unnecessary in a game where a very large part of it, is about exactly that, is ridiculous. It is entirely necessary, in many situations. Particularly among the group that seems so vocal in this thread that this is supposedly a "positive" change. If the null blocs had no need to blow people up, there would be no need for fleets, fleet warp, thousands of alliance members, coalitions, or any of that. We'd have an extraordinarily stale game on our hands, or rather it would be an entirely different game.


If you are arguing that blowing people up is important, then HOW people blow eachother up is also important.
You seem to think that people should blow eachother up by magically appearing on-grid, in-force, in proximity, with very little warning, and asymmetrically striking their target.
I think people should blow eachother up by conducting a methodical, observable, and disruptable search and approach and engaging in relatively symmetrical combat with their target.

Your way is more realistic, but as you say: "We're playing a science fiction game". Whack-a-Mole with bazookas is fun, but maybe we could try it with just shotguns.
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1225 - 2015-06-14 12:43:19 UTC
Tobias Frank wrote:
Rat Scout wrote:

For every person claiming this is a negative change there is also a person who then benefits from this change. . . by proxy


Except that people who like this change aren't complaining here.


Oh how logical they are, there are sensible people on the internet I guess.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1226 - 2015-06-14 12:50:54 UTC
Zappity wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We have 60+ pages of people decrying the end of the world is upon us because they now need a scout rather than relying upon the FC to do all the work. Its hardly a convincing argument from your side.

No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.

Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.


Why did they make warp-to-zero possible? Why did they make it IMpossible to start?

What is getting lost here is the idea that a ship, any ship, can transmit pinpoint accurate navigational information to any other ship in the game if they are fleeted. The only other ways to do that are with combat probes or by lighting cynosural field. You can't warp to a ship under other circumstances, not even if you have a target lock on it. So, why should you be able to magically "form a fleet" with a ship and suddenly have powerful features like Warp To Member, letalone synchronized Fleet Warping and "boosting"? What is the trade off for these things?
It's an unacknowledge buff to group play, i.e. a nerf to solo players or players who do not operate as a game-mechanics sanctioned "fleet". Why? And before you answer "Because, it's the future . . ." remember that that knife cuts both ways.
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
#1227 - 2015-06-14 13:36:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Syzygium
well, one of my corpmates suggested a slightly different solution:

Allow FleetWarps as they are now, but:

- add a delay for executing the command. Lets say 15 Seconds in which all fleet members get a "synchronizing warp drives" Message. They can still cancel the warp during this time and warp manually to be faster on their target.

- synchronizing warp drives then also means, all the fleet is warping with the same speed of the slowest ship in fleet. So if you use FleetWarps, even your Frigs and HACs will be slow as Battleships if you also have Battleships moving with your fleet.

This way the FC still had "full control" if he prefers to have it, but at the penalty of movement speed

But groups with a higher level of organization could use individual warping to their advantage and skip delays and slowdowns if their members are warping themselves or by squads of different warpspeeds. They will land a lot faster on the target and can tackle... but they also have to hold on their own until the rest of the fleet arrives.

Options, Choices... Benefits, Drawbacks... looks like some kind of strategic value for me.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1228 - 2015-06-14 13:50:09 UTC
Syzygium wrote:
well, one of my corpmates suggested a slightly different solution:

Allow FleetWarps as they are now, but:

- add a delay for executing the command. Lets say 15 Seconds in which all fleet members get a "synchronizing warp drives" Message. They can still cancel the warp during this time and warp manually to be faster on their target.

- synchronizing warp drives then also means, all the fleet is warping with the same speed of the slowest ship in fleet. So if you use FleetWarps, even your Frigs and HACs will be slow as Battleships if you also have Battleships moving with your fleet.

This way the FC still had "full control" if he prefers to have it, but at the penalty of movement speed

But groups with a higher level of organization could use individual warping to their advantage and skip delays and slowdowns if their members are warping themselves or by squads of different warpspeeds. They will land a lot faster on the target and can tackle... but they also have to hold on their own until the rest of the fleet arrives.

Options, Choices... Benefits, Drawbacks... looks like some kind of strategic value for me.


CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.
Lendren
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1229 - 2015-06-14 13:54:42 UTC
Rowells wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rowells wrote:
RIP Bomber wings


You'll still be able to use them, but this will slow the speed at which they usually hit their targets. We consider that a very good outcome.

Oh, I'm not complaining...too much.

However I wonder if axing all the potential warp-ins is necessary? Could the broadcast 'warp-to' be extended to allow members to warp themselves to specific targets that were warp able before?



This!!!
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
#1230 - 2015-06-14 15:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Syzygium
baltec1 wrote:
CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.

the idea was to offer a compromise, so there would be a slow mode (current style) with some drawbacks for fleets involving a lot of beginners or for scenarios where there there are no (more) scouts available or these "emergency warpouts" when lag kills control, but always the option to increase performance by managing things manually if the fleet and its members are able to.

In general I absolutely like the removal of fleet-warps (and would like adjustments to broadcasts as well); however I like the idea of having different rewarding or penalizing options at different times under different circumstances even more...
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
#1231 - 2015-06-14 16:08:13 UTC
Something that could help with the logistics of the proposed changes:

Create a new "align to" and "warp to" option where the FC can select a fleetmate as the destination of the "align to" or "warp to" command.

I have noticed that comms can get pretty busy in large fleets, and trying to find a "www" message among the infinite GIF posts and jabber can be frustrating.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1232 - 2015-06-14 16:11:41 UTC
Syzygium wrote:
- synchronizing warp drives then also means, all the fleet is warping with the same speed of the slowest ship in fleet. So if you use FleetWarps, even your Frigs and HACs will be slow as Battleships if you also have Battleships moving with your fleet.


That's already around. Fleet warps happen at the speed of the slowest ship warping along.
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1233 - 2015-06-14 16:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Leeluvv
baltec1 wrote:


CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.


Please define the scout role as you see it that isn't already in the game and this change implements, other than 'replaces a bookmark'.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1234 - 2015-06-14 16:47:56 UTC
Leeluvv wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.


Please define the scout role as you see it that isn't already in the game and this change implements, other than 'replaces a bookmark'.


Very much this.

The pretense that scouts are not used exactly how this change supposedly will inspire is laughable.
Shadowforge Dawkins
Un.Reasonable
#1235 - 2015-06-14 16:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowforge Dawkins
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Shadowforge Dawkins]


I question if you have ever left highsec because your fleets would be silly easy to catch. As for boring gameplay, who wants to sit in a fleet where one guy is doing all the work? A scout in a battle is one of the most action packed roles you can have in EVE.


I currently live in a wormhole and have for quite some time. Goonswarm if I am correct lives in nullsec. And Catastrophic Overview Failure is a corp that takes in new players to live in wormhole space, not daytrip into them.

Our corp roams in nullsec on a regular basis, even using the newly introduced Entosis link to cause mischief often killing first responders, we also roam in Low sec on occasion. However mainly our fights are in Wormhole space.

As for your statement on the action a scout gets in on. And as a scout myself, I enjoy getting into the fights as well, not sitting around watching and recording fights all the time. Yes, people do love getting to kill things as much as getting credit for finding the fight in the first place.

Edit; unlike Nullsec we don't have that silly 'Local' chat bar telling everyone you are in system, so often the target is NOT aware we know their location and have them bookmarked with a fleet sitting on the other side of their wormhole.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1236 - 2015-06-14 16:57:16 UTC
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
Leeluvv wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.


Please define the scout role as you see it that isn't already in the game and this change implements, other than 'replaces a bookmark'.


Very much this.

The pretense that scouts are not used exactly how this change supposedly will inspire is laughable.


Right now the "scout" is the FC ship that everyone is anchored on.
Leeluvv
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1237 - 2015-06-14 17:05:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
Leeluvv wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


CCPs fix is better, it gives us a reason to use people as scouts thus creating more content for fleet members.


Please define the scout role as you see it that isn't already in the game and this change implements, other than 'replaces a bookmark'.


Very much this.

The pretense that scouts are not used exactly how this change supposedly will inspire is laughable.


Right now the "scout" is the FC ship that everyone is anchored on.


Oh, you're assuming that 0.0 PvP is the only PvP. My bad.
Zen Tsai
Polaris Breach Corp
#1238 - 2015-06-14 17:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zen Tsai
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Zen Tsai wrote:
CCP, you are nerfing competent FCs by directly attacking the impact of their player skills. All this does is equal the playing field between the great FCs and the mediocre FCs. In effect, it dumbs the game down, and caters to the unskilled players getting smeared by the truly talented players. And all while masquerading as a change that will get fleet members more involved in fights.

Why slow down the game? Who was so mad at getting outplayed that they lobbied this ridiculous change through? Whose ego is being catered to with this change? Whoever you are, HTFU you whiny space nerd. Those who are best at playing the game SHOULD win.



I put alot more space between your paragraphs because in para 1, you announce that unskilled players would get creamed by truly talented players

Then in para 2 you announce those that are best at playing the game should win


I can only assume you are elated in the fact the truly talented players that are the best at playing the game will win fights


Nope. In para 1 I said that the change "caters to the unskilled players (who are) getting smeared by the truly talented players." I probably could have worded that more clearly, but I was sincerely pissed when I wrote it.

Good players should routinely destroy mediocre players. This change punishes FCs by limiting our moves on the game board. Because herding cats was so easy before. And apparently the player skills being used by talented FCs backed by a gang were so powerful we needed nerfing. So now being a FC who wants to *gasp* position his fleet on grid (in a non-obvious position) on purpose will be forced into tedious workarounds which slow the game down.

CCP...you are taking the role in your game described as "herding cats" and making it just a littler harder. Or we can try multi-boxing while FCing. THANKS. No, sincerely, because FCing wasn't ALREADY a huge pain in the ass in your game. /s
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1239 - 2015-06-14 17:23:57 UTC
Leeluvv wrote:


Oh, you're assuming that 0.0 PvP is the only PvP. My bad.


Yea because only null blocks are smart enough to abuse the current mechanicsRoll
Annah Sun-Scape
Temet Nosce Ex Astra
#1240 - 2015-06-14 17:26:46 UTC
Nope! Petiton?

- next changes should be about Corp and Ally UI not this nonsence!