These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1781 - 2015-06-23 14:34:48 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Arrendis wrote:


CCP, If you want fleet members more engaged, give them reason to be engaged. Right-clicking a name when someone XXs in fleet chat and selecting 'fleet - > warp to member' isn't any more 'engagement' than ctrl-clicking a broadcast and pressing F1.

Give people things to do. Give them reasons to do them. And do it in a way that doesn't pile additional burdens onto the fleet members who are already engaged and already active and busy.



This is my fundamental issue with this proposal. I can find workarounds for the annoyances and tedium imposed by this change. I just don't think this change will actually achieve any measurable gains in terms of participation in fleets and gangs.



Please read this and understand it CCP.

What you're changing doesn't accomplish the stated goal your'e seeking, rather, it just creates tedium and circumstances that make it harder to get fleet engagements.

After reading nearly all of this thread, I can say that most people here are absolutely willing and DO desire changes that create more participation. Furthermore, we can adapt to changes. Thus, we aren't negative about this change just for the fact that it is a change. It's because THIS change is not a good change. Please look at the many other good suggestions in this thread.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1782 - 2015-06-23 15:32:36 UTC
How does this increase participation for the average player? FCs will still be able to fleet warp their fleets to members so if I'm an F1 damage dealer, I'm still pretty mindless. What it does change is the balance of a lot of tactics, particularly for mixed-corp fleets. Here are some of the most concerning issues

1. Slippery Petes are going to get stupid powerful. In a SP fleet, I just warp 1 ship ahead to a bookmark or send an interceptor forward and then warp my fleet on top of them. My tactics barely change, but now I force my opponent to commit a ship with billions in implants to maybe catch the 1 Tengu it can scram. If you can't bum-rush the Tengu blob with a ton of super-fast frigs, you're pretty much screwed.

2. Pipebombs are going to get painful. First off, hats off to Rooks and Kings for inventing such an ingenious tactic. Second, hats off to the FCs who painstakingly went and bookmarked perches all over the place to avoid them. Going from gate, to perch, to gate already slowed down fleets. This is just adding another step to safe fleet movement. This will be somewhat preventable in a corp (though it will make corp spies even more deadly), but mixed-corp fleets are going to get hit pretty hard by every form of bubble-related mechanic if they try to move at any speed other than slow. That's not too big of a deal for small gangs that are roaming just to roam, but bigger gangs with objectives are going to be penalized.

3. Hotdrops are going to get relatively much more powerful. They'll be faster than warping your fleet to an enemy fleet, so if you don't have to, why do it. I already think hotdrops are a kind of gimicy tactic, and I don't support making them any stronger.

This barely does anything to weaken bombers, since they manuever cloaked and don't have nearly the need of other ships for their fleet to arrive immediately, and it only makes F1 damage dealers slightly more involved, in a very finite number of situations. The biggest issue, however, is that this seemingly came out of nowhere. If you look at the "Features and Ideas Discussion" we're talking about all sorts of things.

Here's an example of some of the recent topics I've noticed have recieved a lot of attention:
- More engaging mining
- Changes to logistics
- T3 balance
- Changes to warp prevention (shameless plug for my own thread)
- Battlecruiser buffs
- Cynos
- Bomb mechanics

I understand that there are big concept changes to the game that players really can't invent, such as the recent sov changes and proposed new structures (which both generally seem really good, and if CCP keeps up the community involvement, will probably be fairly polished right off the bat), but little stuff like fleet warps? Listen to the community. There are a lot of ways to make non-FCs more involved, and due to the massive changes to sov, CCP is already doing it. Fleet sizes will get smaller, and small fleets already put a higher premium on individual involvement. There are other things to address that haven't been addressed, and id CCP has the time for this, they certainly have the time to change some of those.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1783 - 2015-06-23 18:18:00 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.


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 intent of the changes is to increase active participation and distribute responsibility for a fleet's success or failure across more actors. The changes do nothing to actually achieve this goal. Instead, all they do is promote the use of an additional, dedicated probing and 'warp to me @10' alt for the FC. That point's been made over and over, and the whys and wherefores of it explained both succinctly and in great detail.

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.


Great post.

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

Jenshae Chiroptera
#1784 - 2015-06-23 19:55:03 UTC
Worthless complexity is not adding depth to the game.

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.
Dermeisen
#1785 - 2015-06-23 22:04:39 UTC
Another look at the Fleet warp change, an exchange of views. This was quite balanced - shock horror so far the salty wine is confined mainly to this thread.

All I can say is it's going to be much more fun following fleets and picking off that guy who keeps getting caught on the gate :-( bless!

"Not the Boreworms!"
Dermeisen
#1786 - 2015-06-23 22:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dermeisen
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.


Agreed, but I think it's irony isn't it!

However this comment made by Arrendis is interesting. Does making Eve more difficult make it a better game, or indeed what makes for a good game, it's a very interesting question.

A big part of me wants to say yes, if Eve wasn't difficult I would have outgrown it years ago.

I suggest that the ingredients of a good game are: goals, challenge, reward, balance and decisions. You might want to elaborate the rubric as a set of heuristics. I am shamelessly cherry picking one for each of the five attributes of a good game.

i.e. that a game should:

Provide purpose and direction;

Be easy to learn and hard to master;

Reward skill and achievement: i.e. amplify the completive challenge;

Avoid simple or trivial winning strategies;

Provide players with provocative choices and consequences.

I feel the guys who don't want this change have to be more persuasive or lose fleet warp.

"Not the Boreworms!"
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1787 - 2015-06-24 01:53:42 UTC
Dermeisen wrote:
... All I can say is it's going to be much more fun following fleets and picking off that guy who keeps getting caught on the gate :-( bless!
Do not worry.
There is quite a few disabled people who struggle along to play EVE, one arm, missing fingers, some playing with their mouths, probably even feet.
This change should make it easier to kill them off and rub it in. Blink

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.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1788 - 2015-06-24 02:49:43 UTC
Dermeisen wrote:

However this comment made by Arrendis is interesting. Does making Eve more difficult make it a better game, or indeed what makes for a good game, it's a very interesting question.

A big part of me wants to say yes, if Eve wasn't difficult I would have outgrown it years ago.

I suggest that the ingredients of a good game are: goals, challenge, reward, balance and decisions. You might want to elaborate the rubric as a set of heuristics. I am shamelessly cherry picking one for each of the five attributes of a good game.

i.e. that a game should:

Provide purpose and direction;

Be easy to learn and hard to master;

Reward skill and achievement: i.e. amplify the completive challenge;

Avoid simple or trivial winning strategies;

Provide players with provocative choices and consequences.

I feel the guys who don't want this change have to be more persuasive or loose fleet warp.


Well, let me begin with the disclaimer that I am a horrible, horrible, unrepentant pedant. 'Lose', not 'loose'. Lol

Ok, with that out of the way...

I don't think anything anyone in this thread or any other is going to have any effect on these changes. Not in the slightest. When was the last time a Dev responded to any of the statements in here, even to say 'we're still listening'? So I doubt any argument, no matter how persuasive, is going to have any effect whatsoever.

But the reality is, they say this change is to increase the amount of engagement among fleet members, that this change is supposed to increase the amount of responsibility on the shoulders of regular fleet members. But does it? Does it even begin to achieve those goals? If this change doesn't actually further those goals, then why proceed with it? Change for the sake of change, in the face of significant and reasonable objections, in the face of the devs making the change telling the W-space community 'yes, you're right, the things this will do to you are unfair and not what we're after' is insane.

If it's not going to do what you want it to do, and it's going to have a number of side-effects you don't intend for a not-insignificant plurality of your customers... don't do it. At the very least, back off from the immediate decision and re-think things. Re-evaluate how to achieve your goals, and how to avoid the unintended consequences. That's one of the big strengths of the 6-week release cycle, isn't it? If a change isn't ready, if it's not what it's supposed to be, then you can push it back and keep working to make it right?

We've seen the full Entosis Link functions get pushed back a cycle, then another week. Why can't this stand to be pushed back and re-evaluated, or even just delayed until other systems to deal with those unintended w-space consequences go in? There hasn't been even a murmur of 'well, if it's not ready, we can push it back' - everything we've heard has been 'full speed ahead and maybe we'll figure out a way around the issues, or maybe we'll get that later'. Why the rush? Why the need to put this out before the full Entosis Link mechanic changes the way we even use fleets?

We all know that the 'engagement' level on average is higher in small fleets than large fleets - large fleets have more space for dedicated dps ships that don't have to do anything else. Smaller fleets, small gangs, a higher percentage of the fleet is tackle, or logistics, or scouts, or ewar as a baseline. When Fozziesov hits, with timers requiring fighting in as many as ten or more multiple locations simultaneously across a constellation for one timer, we all know we're looking at a higher number of smaller fleets. Which means we're already looking at higher levels of engagement and personal responsibility.

So why the obsession with this change? Why can't this be pushed back until we know if we even still need to raise engagement in a month? What's the rush?

Especially since, as I and others have said: this change doesn't do what they say it's needed to do. It doesn't. There are plenty of other ways to increase individual engagement and responsibility. Fixing logi would by necessity put more responsibility on the individual line pilot to watch his status and be more engaged in his own survival. Giving the line pilot more options for what they're doing, more options as to how to perform their role in a fleet - that would increase engagement and shift more responsibility onto the line member. Making them wait for a covops to land on a probed-down perch before the FC fleet warps... doesn't.

So why do it? Why do it now? Why the obsessive rush to implement it regardless of its unintended consequences?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1789 - 2015-06-24 03:51:53 UTC
Brother Mercury wrote:


What you're changing doesn't accomplish the stated goal your'e seeking, rather, it just creates tedium and circumstances that make it harder to get fleet engagements.


So its working as intended.

The point of this change is to force FCs to stop doing the scouting in their FC ship and use more than one ship for this job and thus more people. Can the FC use an alt? Sure. Can the FC use said alt as effectively as a dedicated player? No. The attrition rate for FC alt cov-ops is abysmal. Dedicated scanner alts will be needed with this change so the goals of this change will be met.
Dermeisen
#1790 - 2015-06-24 06:35:43 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dermeisen wrote:
... All I can say is it's going to be much more fun following fleets and picking off that guy who keeps getting caught on the gate :-( bless!
Do not worry.
There is quite a few disabled people who struggle along to play EVE, one arm, missing fingers, some playing with their mouths, probably even feet.
This change should make it easier to kill them off and rub it in. Blink


How patronising - derpy and disability may begin with the same letter but that's it.

"Not the Boreworms!"
Dermeisen
#1791 - 2015-06-24 07:30:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dermeisen
Your pedantry does you credit, I very much enjoy reading your articles at TMC. I on the other hand find typing a bit of a chore.

Ok, Arrendis (dispensing with a long quote); there are very likely less intrusive ways to achieve increased interactivity, but the prerogative of the designer is not only to design but also to determine how changes will fit into a larger whole, parts of which may not yet be fully apparent (as suggested by the intriguing comment concerning changes to wormholes).

I think the rhetorical value of stating that CCP pays us lip-service is well made. One would have to be a little starry-eyed to overestimate our influence, but I'm hopeful. I would certainly like to see squad warp retained, but not for cloaked ships.

I have heard it said again and again, and you make the point yourself, rapid iteration is the key feature of this new release cadence. Few changes will survive their first encounter with the eve player base unbroken, so let's prototype. This is a courageous change that imo will have much less impact on us than is believed. It's didactic even but it will produce better eve players. A change in the tide means that all our boats will move together, I hope that's true. It is possible to remain in an alliance and improve very little even if you are unashamedly casual in your play style.

On an adjacent point, we have seen the speed at which an unencumbered null sec alliance may entosis regions in duality, I feel that 'this' is part of a subtle game balance equation to ameliorate these kind of problems, but this is merely speculation.

"Not the Boreworms!"
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1792 - 2015-06-24 07:46:09 UTC
Fango Mango wrote:
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

This could have an easy fix, by making mission beacons available to all members in fleet. This could be a configurable setting.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1793 - 2015-06-24 12:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Brother Mercury
baltec1 wrote:
Brother Mercury wrote:


What you're changing doesn't accomplish the stated goal your'e seeking, rather, it just creates tedium and circumstances that make it harder to get fleet engagements.


So its working as intended.

The point of this change is to force FCs to stop doing the scouting in their FC ship and use more than one ship for this job and thus more people. Can the FC use an alt? Sure. Can the FC use said alt as effectively as a dedicated player? No. The attrition rate for FC alt cov-ops is abysmal. Dedicated scanner alts will be needed with this change so the goals of this change will be met.




When I say that it will make fleet engagements harder, I'm saying that it will just increase the time for two fleets to fight, OR in the case that one slippery fleet wants to run -- run and no fights will happen.

Scenario 1) Two fleets want to fight but are trying to get good positioning on each other. The fight is going to happen, they just have to find their warp-in. Without this change: FC 1 combat probes a bit and finds the fleet and lands X km from the FC 2 and they fight. FC 2 is defensively waiting at an objective. They now fight. With this change: FC 1 combat probes a bit, warps to where he wants the fleet to warp to, then warps his fleet to his prober. FC 2 is defensively waiting at the objective. They now fight.

In this first scenario, LITERALLY, the only "added" fleet member participation is that the FC's alt prober (95% of the time it will be the FC's alt prober) has to warp to his results. This is not added involvement, it is straight up just added tedium and another process before a fight can happen.

Scenario 2) Two fleets are moving around a system looking to engage, but the fight isn't inevitable because there is no objective to be taken. FC 1 has a slower fleet than FC 2s faster fleet. Without this change: While FC 1's prober alt is trying to chase down FC 2's fleet, FC 2's fleet is on the move and keeps warping off right as FC 1 warps his fleet to FC 2's location. This goes on for awhile, and FC 1's fleet manages finally to catch a couple of FC 2's ships with his prober. FC 2's prober meanwhile is trying to get a ranged location on the FC 1's fleet because FC 2's fleet is the faster, ranged fleet. FC 2's prober finds a decent spot and they alpha a couple of FC 1's ships. At this point the fight is pretty even -- both sides have a lost a few ships and they are more happy because there was content. You can make up in your mind who wins. With this change: FC 1 will now NEVER have a chance to probe down FC 2's fleet because, before this change he was barely getting there in time. Meanwhile FC 2 can't get a good location at range on FC 1's fleet because of the delay as well. Both fleets lumber around a bit until FC 2's fleet gets bored and leaves. No fights happen and everyone is annoyed and bored. Let's even assume that there are "dedicated scanners" on both fleets. This doesn't change the result that no fights happen and people are left bored because the FC's warping to the dedicated scanners creates a great enough delay for the two fleets to just dance around each other, in a mind-numbing occasion.

OK, so there are plenty of more scenarios that one could make up but the point I'm trying to make is that this change only makes the game LESS fun for everyone. And for what? MAYBE in SOME instances a fleet will have another dedicated prober besides the FC using one. That's literally it -- 1 or 2 members having a mandatory, non-fun role, which by the way just adds an arbitrary step before we can fight. But you're forgetting that fleet members are already doing things in fleets that CCP for some reason thinks will change and have value added -- i.e. fleets already often have prober's, or interceptors, or sabres that are trying to tackle enemy targets and provide warp-ins. This is value that is already added to individual members, without this change required. Their roles won't magically be increased just because there's an added step that the FC has to warp to a member. You honestly believe that MAYBE ONE "dedicated scanner" is added fleet participation, considering the massive impact it has on other parts of EVE? Again, people are open to change in this thread. It's just that this change doesn't do what CCP wants, but their being bull-headed about it anyway.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1794 - 2015-06-24 13:08:02 UTC
Brother Mercury wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Brother Mercury wrote:


What you're changing doesn't accomplish the stated goal your'e seeking, rather, it just creates tedium and circumstances that make it harder to get fleet engagements.


So its working as intended.

The point of this change is to force FCs to stop doing the scouting in their FC ship and use more than one ship for this job and thus more people. Can the FC use an alt? Sure. Can the FC use said alt as effectively as a dedicated player? No. The attrition rate for FC alt cov-ops is abysmal. Dedicated scanner alts will be needed with this change so the goals of this change will be met.




When I say that it will make fleet engagements harder, I'm saying that it will just increase the time for two fleets to fight, OR in the case that one slippery fleet wants to run -- run and no fights will happen.

Scenario 1) Two fleets want to fight but are trying to get good positioning on each other. The fight is going to happen, they just have to find their warp-in. Without this change: FC 1 combat probes a bit and finds the fleet and lands X km from the FC 2 and they fight. FC 2 is defensively waiting at an objective. They now fight. With this change: FC 1 combat probes a bit, warps to where he wants the fleet to warp to, then warps his fleet to his prober. FC 2 is defensively waiting at the objective. They now fight.

In this first scenario, LITERALLY, the only "added" fleet member participation is that the FC's alt prober (95% of the time it will be the FC's alt prober) has to warp to his results. This is not added involvement, it is straight up just added tedium and another process before a fight can happen.

Scenario 2) Two fleets are moving around a system looking to engage, but the fight isn't inevitable because there is no objective to be taken. FC 1 has a slower fleet than FC 2s faster fleet. Without this change: While FC 1's prober alt is trying to chase down FC 2's fleet, FC 2's fleet is on the move and keeps warping off right as FC 1 warps his fleet to FC 2's location. This goes on for awhile, and FC 1's fleet manages finally to catch a couple of FC 2's ships with his prober. FC 2's prober meanwhile is trying to get a ranged location on the FC 1's fleet because FC 2's fleet is the faster, ranged fleet. FC 2's prober finds a decent spot and they alpha a couple of FC 1's ships. At this point the fight is pretty even -- both sides have a lost a few ships and they are more happy because there was content. You can make up in your mind who wins. With this change: FC 1 will now NEVER have a chance to probe down FC 2's fleet because, before this change he was barely getting there in time. Meanwhile FC 2 can't get a good location at range on FC 1's fleet because of the delay as well. Both fleets lumber around a bit until FC 2's fleet gets bored and leaves. No fights happen and everyone is annoyed and bored. Let's even assume that there are "dedicated scanners" on both fleets. This doesn't change the result that no fights happen and people are left bored because the FC's warping to the dedicated scanners creates a great enough delay for the two fleets to just dance around each other, in a mind-numbing occasion.

OK, so there are plenty of more scenarios that one could make up but the point I'm trying to make is that this change only makes the game LESS fun for everyone. And for what? MAYBE in SOME instances a fleet will have another dedicated prober besides the FC using one. That's literally it -- 1 or 2 members having a mandatory, non-fun role, which by the way just adds an arbitrary step before we can fight. But you're forgetting that fleet members are already doing things in fleets that CCP for some reason thinks will change and have value added -- i.e. fleets already often have prober's, or interceptors, or sabres that are trying to tackle enemy targets and provide warp-ins. This is value that is already added to individual members, without this change required. Their roles won't magically be increased just because there's an added step that the FC has to warp to a member. You honestly believe that MAYBE ONE "dedicated scanner" is added fleet participation, considering the massive impact it has on other parts of EVE? Again, people are open to change in this thread. It's just that this change doesn't do what CCP wants, but their being bull-headed about it anyway.


It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1795 - 2015-06-24 14:50:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


That can be accomplished with a much less disruptive change: disallow fleet warping to probe results and bookmarks less than one minute old (bookmark age is already in the database).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1796 - 2015-06-24 15:12:24 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


That can be accomplished with a much less disruptive change: disallow fleet warping to probe results and bookmarks less than one minute old (bookmark age is already in the database).


CCPs change is more effective and easier to do.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1797 - 2015-06-24 15:25:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


Which is not what they say they want.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1798 - 2015-06-24 15:44:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


That can be accomplished with a much less disruptive change: disallow fleet warping to probe results and bookmarks less than one minute old (bookmark age is already in the database).


CCPs change is more effective and easier to do.


More effective at pissing everyone off and one line of code less.
A55 Burger
Weiland Yutani Corporation
#1799 - 2015-06-24 16:43:42 UTC  |  Edited by: A55 Burger
baltec1 wrote:


It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


Ahhhh... the good old days.

*In case the implication isn't clear, it's not possible that you got more fights in 2007.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1800 - 2015-06-24 16:44:44 UTC
A55 Burger wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.


Ahhhh... the good old days.


This show what exactly with regards to the way fleets worked back then?