These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1761 - 2015-06-22 19:00:39 UTC
Ryno Caval wrote:

I mean seriously
-Scan something down - 1-2 min if skills and technique are good
-Save location- 1 sec
-Open people & location submenu -1sec
-Find your location you wish to share -1sec
-Shift click and drag into your cargo -1sec
-Jettison can -1sec
-Tell fleet member designated as warp in to loot can -1 sec (more if you didn't designate warp in or they are not paying attention)
-Tell warp in to to warp selves to BM -based on warp time and system size 10-30+ sec (for largest system in BS fleet comp takes 95 sec)
-Fleet warp to member -based on warp time and system size 10-30+ sec (for largest system in BS fleet comp takes 95 sec)

total time 3 min 6 sec
total time that is added to the regular process maybe 35+ sec and at most 100 sec

35+ whole seconds what ever are we going to do (and mind you 30 sec warp for BS is approx 90 AU give or take a few seconds for acceleration and deceleration)

First, you take 2-4x longer to scan someone down than a seasoned prober. Than you are 3-5x faster at doing the other stuff. What kinda drugs are you on?

Ryno Caval wrote:
That was my rant some of you will TL:DR it some will read it and agree, some will disagree. I don't care either way just stop bitching so, dam much and learn to adapt to things.

TL;DR for folks: Dude buys original argument but couldn't be bothered to read up on the objections in the previous 80+ pages. Or reading comprehension skills are sub-mid-school level.
A55 Burger
Weiland Yutani Corporation
#1762 - 2015-06-22 19:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: A55 Burger
Arrendis wrote:
A55 Burger wrote:
I see a lot of complaints in this discussion that seem to center on the idea that Eve is a better game when it is difficult.


And yet, absolutely nobody in the discussion is actually saying 'EVE is a better game when it is difficult'. The proposed changes don't reduce 'difficulty' at all - nor, for that matter, do they improve 'clarity'.

[...]

The average fleet member will not see their 'active participation' increase. They will not shoulder any additional responsibility. How do we know? Because they already don't. The people who are willing to shoulder responsibility already do so. They're the ones who do the things that need to be done, instead of flying a ship that has a bunch of guns and pads its killboards. They're already actively participating. They're flying logistics, or fast tackle, or EWAR ships, or point Proteii and webbing Lokis. They're doing things, and when everything goes to Hek, they're the ones who're already holding it together.

The regular fleet members? The ones who don't have any 'active participation' over 'lock target, press F1'? They're choosing to be that. They're actively deciding 'I want to just shoot something and get my kills, and to hell with all of the things that need doing'. That's why FCs have to call for more logi, call for boosters, actively ask people to get into the specialized, active roles - not because there's nothing to do, but because people don't want to do it.

The only way you change that is by making the 'I am the guy who does dps' role into something more active. There's ways to do that. There's even ways to do it without overloading the people who are already doing plenty. Changing fleet warp... ain't it.


This is a great example of that well reasoned argument. The concepts are explained, there isn't any needless flamebait, and an alternative is presented.

It beats "This game used to be harder, suck it up" by far. Giving a logistics pilot something to do other than watch the broadcast window would be amazing. Giving a dps ship more to do than lock target, fire, switch target, fire, reload would make fleets less like work, and more like play. Making fleet positioning more dynamic would make commanding a fleet much more rewarding, and feel more like a victory than a failure to follow a flowchart.
Libby Tazinas
Doomheim
#1763 - 2015-06-22 19:40:28 UTC
At first I was on the fence about these changes but seeing how many whiny baby elite pvpers that are so fond of these changes I say bring on more changes.

Remember kids, its adapt or die.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't want ass prints on the new door!
A55 Burger
Weiland Yutani Corporation
#1764 - 2015-06-22 19:47:11 UTC
A55 Burger wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
A55 Burger wrote:
I see a lot of complaints in this discussion that seem to center on the idea that Eve is a better game when it is difficult.


And yet, absolutely nobody in the discussion is actually saying 'EVE is a better game when it is difficult'. The proposed changes don't reduce 'difficulty' at all - nor, for that matter, do they improve 'clarity'.

[...]

The only way you change that is by making the 'I am the guy who does dps' role into something more active. There's ways to do that. There's even ways to do it without overloading the people who are already doing plenty. Changing fleet warp... ain't it.


This is a great example of that well reasoned argument. The concepts are explained, there isn't any needless flamebait, and an alternative is presented.



Libby Tazinas wrote:
At first I was on the fence about these changes but seeing how many whiny baby elite pvpers that are so fond of these changes I say bring on more changes.

Remember kids, its adapt or die.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't want ass prints on the new door!





And this is a great example of a not so well reasoned argument. Thanks for your insightful contribution.
Dermeisen
#1765 - 2015-06-22 20:06:58 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
A55 Burger wrote:
I see a lot of complaints in this discussion that seem to center on the idea that Eve is a better game when it is difficult.

[...]

Anyone can change my mind with a well reasoned argument, yet it is very difficult to interpret an argument as well reasoned when the supporting facts are either attacks, or clearly haven't been given a second look by the writer. Perhaps the ability to understand a perspective other than your own would aid you in making these arguments.


[...]

The regular fleet members? The ones who don't have any 'active participation' over 'lock target, press F1'? They're choosing to be that. They're actively deciding 'I want to just shoot something and get my kills, and to hell with all of the things that need doing'. That's why FCs have to call for more logi, call for boosters, actively ask people to get into the specialized, active roles - not because there's nothing to do, but because people don't want to do it.

The only way you change that is by making the 'I am the guy who does dps' role into something more active. There's ways to do that. There's even ways to do it without overloading the people who are already doing plenty. Changing fleet warp... ain't it.


Experience is compelling isn't it, but institutional processes in a large alliance such as yours inevitably lead their members into passivity, reward risk averse behaviour and punish non-conformance. If you expect creativity or initiative you won't find it, the culture abhors it. You'd be much more likely to find anger at the suggestion that 'they' take a lead, after all mixed messages are intensely frustrating. Your membership will prefer to make heroes of their fc to explain their complacency, and the FCs just want them to hit F1, like Henry Ford put it "Why is it that every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?"

"Not the Boreworms!"
A55 Burger
Weiland Yutani Corporation
#1766 - 2015-06-22 20:19:20 UTC
Dermeisen wrote:

Experience is compelling isn't it, but institutional processes in a large alliance such as yours inevitably lead their members into passivity, reward risk averse behaviour and punish non-conformance. If you expect creativity or initiative you won't find it, the culture abhors it. You'd be much more likely to find anger at the suggestion that 'they' take a lead, after all mixed messages are intensely frustrating. Your membership will prefer to make heroes of their fc to explain their complacency, and the FCs just want them to hit F1, like Henry Ford put it "Why is it that every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?"

Wait, you're saying that a large alliance inevitably makes for a passive, boring game? That how many people fly under a banner is the reason for these problems, and not how the game is designed?

Seems a bit of a stretch.
Fango Mango
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1767 - 2015-06-22 20:20:06 UTC
Only read about 40 pages of this threadnough so not sure if this has been mentioned (and pretty sure CCP will never read it), but anyway here we go.

How does removing the the ability to fleet warp to mission locations improve the game? What problem are you trying to fix. How is fleet warp being abused by mission runners?

Who runs missions in fleets?
1) Incursions - This will have no effect because you can still fleet warp to incursion beacons.
2) "Vets" running missions with newbros - Sure lets make it harder for our newer members.
3) L5 missions gangs (me!!!). Will make running some missions a real pain.


If you run L5s with a gang as opposed to a solo carrier, you need your logi to land at about the same time as your other ships. If logi lands first it dies. If logi is too late everything else dies. The window is small in some missions (about 15 seconds). Because most L5s are un-gated you can't just warp to the gate then set up there. The only real option for a gang will be to bookmark the mission before accepting the mission, share the bookmarks (hopefully everyone is in the same corp), then accept the mission and run. While that is certainly doable it's crap gameplay. I will be the first to say the L5s are unbalanced with their insane payout (and have posted many time to this affect), but the solution is not to force a crap mechanic onto your customers.

-FM
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1768 - 2015-06-22 22:17:06 UTC
Dermeisen wrote:

Experience is compelling isn't it, but institutional processes in a large alliance such as yours inevitably lead their members into passivity, reward risk averse behaviour and punish non-conformance. If you expect creativity or initiative you won't find it, the culture abhors it. You'd be much more likely to find anger at the suggestion that 'they' take a lead, after all mixed messages are intensely frustrating. Your membership will prefer to make heroes of their fc to explain their complacency, and the FCs just want them to hit F1, like Henry Ford put it "Why is it that every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?"


I won't say that there's isn't a degree of that, sure, but I do think it's overstated. Both Goonswarm, and the Imperium as a whole, have programs for people who want to do more. To say the 'culture' abhors initiative is patently false - it rewards it. It just doesn't reward initiative that's counterproductive. If you want to be the guy who's doing X important task, there are programs in the Imperium's structure that are available to folks in all of the member-alliances (not just CONDI) to help them learn that job, help them get better about it, and give them an avenue to practice. Tackle and Dictors can cut their teeth in any of the high-activity, small-gang SIGs. Logi pilots can hook up w/RepSwarm. FC-candidates can sign up for the Skirmish Commander program. Cloaky eyes can join Scouts, etc etc. The list goes on and on, and includes things like Miniluv and Hole Squad.

However, for the majority of people who choose not to take on a specialized role... that's still a choice. It may be the most passive choice they've ever made, but they're making it. They're the ones joining the fleet in a battleship or dps cruiser, not a more specialized ship where initiative is rewarded. And if they're going to choose to fly a ship whose purpose in the fleet is 'shoot who you are told to shoot'.. then they're going to be expected to do that. That's not punishing people for initiative, it's accepting their decision and saying 'if that's what you want to do, that's what we'll expect you to do.'

and A55...

A55 Burger wrote:

Giving a logistics pilot something to do other than watch the broadcast window would be amazing.


Sometimes, it would. When you're taking sustained incoming fire that switches targets rapidly and has you trying to lock up 20 targets in 25 seconds on a ship that locks at max 10... yeah, no. :) I don't mind giving my guys ways to not be bored. I don't want 'em bored. I want them alert and engaged... but at the same time, when the shooting starts, I want them to be able to focus on those broadcasts, and deliver max reps as efficiently and quickly as possible. Making sure they can do that - worrying about the positioning and range to our fleet, making sure we're not needlessly at risk from the enemy fleet... that's my job, and I do it precisely to reduce the amount of distractions they have. Because in big fights... there's a lot of them. ;)
Libby Tazinas
Doomheim
#1769 - 2015-06-22 23:44:13 UTC
Considering I was making a comment and not an argument. You should maybe keep your insight to yourself until you can tell the difference between the two?!

Remember no ass prints on my door!

A55 Burger wrote:
A55 Burger wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
A55 Burger wrote:
I see a lot of complaints in this discussion that seem to center on the idea that Eve is a better game when it is difficult.


And yet, absolutely nobody in the discussion is actually saying 'EVE is a better game when it is difficult'. The proposed changes don't reduce 'difficulty' at all - nor, for that matter, do they improve 'clarity'.

[...]

The only way you change that is by making the 'I am the guy who does dps' role into something more active. There's ways to do that. There's even ways to do it without overloading the people who are already doing plenty. Changing fleet warp... ain't it.


This is a great example of that well reasoned argument. The concepts are explained, there isn't any needless flamebait, and an alternative is presented.



Libby Tazinas wrote:
At first I was on the fence about these changes but seeing how many whiny baby elite pvpers that are so fond of these changes I say bring on more changes.

Remember kids, its adapt or die.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't want ass prints on the new door!





And this is a great example of a not so well reasoned argument. Thanks for your insightful contribution.
A55 Burger
Weiland Yutani Corporation
#1770 - 2015-06-23 01:04:39 UTC
Libby Tazinas wrote:
Considering I was making a comment and not an argument. You should maybe keep your insight to yourself until you can tell the difference between the two?!

Remember no ass prints on my door!



You're entirely right. A poorly reasoned argument would have been a more worthwhile contribution.

Carry on!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1771 - 2015-06-23 02:44:25 UTC
Quote:

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.



by members you mean fc alts right?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1772 - 2015-06-23 03:19:20 UTC
Good, but more nerfs are needed. I'm tired of every scrublord getting by because his FC is holding his hand for every single bit of a fight and being able to execute things that require actual skill to pull off, without actually doing anything. Keep on nerfing bad pilots tyvm for this small, but great change.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1773 - 2015-06-23 08:28:47 UTC
Lelob wrote:
Good, but more nerfs are needed. I'm tired of every scrublord getting by because his FC is holding his hand for every single bit of a fight and being able to execute things that require actual skill to pull off, without actually doing anything. Keep on nerfing bad pilots tyvm for this small, but great change.


How, exactly, does this change cause your desire to come true?
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1774 - 2015-06-23 09:35:05 UTC
The simple answer to your question, Awkward, is fleet warp and other fleet functions allow players to handhold others so they can come along, participate, and play. As sexy as it is to be capable as an individual pilot and in a group of similar quality nerds, it's callous for players to let other players be damned on this issue.

For CCP to say players be damned, I think, is downright irresponsible. To yank a gameplay tool without compensating by making it easier to make the same choices. I'm talking about the UI.

Because EVE is difficult for a few reasons. First is learning what things are, then there's learning what things do, then finally being able to interpret what's in space with you. Fleet functions are one of the things that allow a lot of players to participate without fully grasping what is going on around them. Removing this crutch places more of the piloting burden onto individual players even if they have an FC.

The barrier to gameplay is getting a bit higher, and that's assuming people will stick around. In other words, EVE is about to suck more.

It's apropos the opinion comes from someone in Elitist Ops, because basically this change is good for elitist reasons. But it's bad for a game's popularity and it's a shame when EVE doesn't have to be so confounding.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Adriana Shi
Deadspace Corp.
#1775 - 2015-06-23 10:00:19 UTC
im game for this change to nullsec fleets but missions should be left alone its not like thats a huge problem? unless you're attempting to hit multiboxers if so then ...good job? OP SUCESS?? its going to be more of an annoyance then anything.
BUT!
WORMHOLES!
this this is where my issue is, Getting to Relic\Data's without a cloaky scout is going to be EXTREAMLY difficult. you're going to have to build a ship (unless you use a cloaky scout...which should be on a hole not being you're warpin...) speficly to tank any and all inital alpha from ANY Relic\Data you're fleet deside's to run till the rest of the fleet can get there or at least logi.

i think Wh's need to be addressed before you implemnt this at least for bookmarks\probe results. which kinda defeats the perpose? cuz you know not to mention 90% of Wh space is BOOOOOKKKKMMMMMAAARRRRRKKKKKKSSSSSS
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#1776 - 2015-06-23 12:16:29 UTC
So, where was that update you mentioned would be coming "next week" in your post on the 12th :P
Zakatka Night
#1777 - 2015-06-23 13:12:51 UTC
very good idea! Big smile
Dermeisen
#1778 - 2015-06-23 13:18:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Dermeisen
A good piece in CZ by the deadly but adorable Apothne. He does a good job of exploring the implications. Listen to a spirited discussion between Chessur and Dunk Dinkle on CZ TV.

"Not the Boreworms!"
highonpop
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1779 - 2015-06-23 14:02:36 UTC
CCP makes change to game that only INCREASES the already difficult gameplay
CCP makes thread detailing these changes asking for feedback
CCP gets overwhelmingly negative feedback
CCP says players are wrong, devs know better, changes coming anyway



Why even have this thread at all? Why not just say you're making changes that will make it more difficult and confusing to navigate fleets regardless of what the community thinks and then go ahead and implement them..

FC, what do?
Dermeisen
#1780 - 2015-06-23 14:21:10 UTC
highonpop wrote:
CCP makes change to game that only INCREASES the already difficult gameplay
CCP makes thread detailing these changes asking for feedback
CCP gets overwhelmingly negative feedback
CCP says players are wrong, devs know better, changes coming anyway



Why even have this thread at all? Why not just say you're making changes that will make it more difficult and confusing to navigate fleets regardless of what the community thinks and then go ahead and implement them..


I'm not convinced that the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. The feedback has contained a good deal of back and forth. Some of the criticism has been poor, but much of it has been considered and constructive - there will be concessions made; believe in the value of the process.

However, to the Cassandras of this thread have faith, faith that if this does have the dire consequences you predict that they are but six weeks or less away from modification.

"Not the Boreworms!"