Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Thats a cool idea. Some sort of 'Navigation Array' perhaps tied in with some of the other ideas in this thread and only deployable in your capital?

btw, what i meant by "you shouldn't be punished for owning sov" is that you should gain actual benefits from your sov, currently its more punishment than reward.

After seeing the community reaction to the jump fatigue round table we hosted yesterday evening, reading the comments both here and on Reddit, and having a bit of a retrospective with those involved this morning, we'd like to talk a little more about what went wrong yesterday, and how we can more effectively gather feedback from you all on what is very clearly an important issue for a large proportion of the community.

CCP was eager to hold this round table as we wanted further feedback about the current (post Aegis Sov) impact that Jump Fatigue and the Phoebe changes were having on players, now that a month has passed since the new Sov system was released and people are starting to get to the true nature of these new mechanics. All of the devs involved in the round table have a vested interest in this particular aspect of the game. This feedback was to add to the ongoing development and discussions CCP are currently having with the CSM about Capital Ships and the issues that this portion of players are currently facing.

We were seeking out player feedback at this early stage in the design phase, in order to acknowledge and mitigate player concerns whilst considering the changes we're looking to make to Capitals. Unfortunately we can't announce the proposed changes yet due to the fact that there are a lot of aspects of what we're looking to change. This happens during the early development of features, and can (and often does) cause a lot of frustration in the Community who are seeing a blank silent wall, rather than a large group of people going through the process of problem solving and solution building. We have been bringing the CSM into discussions surrounding the changes we're looking to make, and how that will affect players who own and fly capitals. We were hoping to bring the wider community into that process.

Due to the fact we can't talk publicly about the capital changes we're looking into at this stage, most of the questions put to us could not be answered in a way that would satisfy player concerns about Fatigue, Sov or any of the other issues faced by Null Sec players that were brought to the table. Although we attempted to explain this point during the round table, repeating often that we could not make any announcements to such a select group of players (rather than the whole player base that could be reached in a devblog or official announcement channel) this simply caused further frustration for players, who perceived these vague responses as either not caring of player concerns, or inflexible in our views of how the game should be. A better format to this particular discussion could have been more direct questions from us regarding specific aspects of Jump Fatigue.

Being unable to answer the very valid concerns that were brought to the Round Table with nothing but vague responses that are wrapped in NDA legalities is frustrating for devs too, and this resulted in the wrong tone being applied to the second half of this conversation. This is going to be a part of a wider discussion on communication and promoting more openness that CCP Falcon and CCP Leeloo wish to have with the CSM and CCP Seagull during CSM 10's first summit in September, along with changes to the CSM on the whole that will better suit the faster and more streamlined release cadence that we have now.

We know that players are super passionate about Sov, Nullsec and piloting capitals, and it was never our intention to offend or further antagonize our players whilst discussing a very heated topic, one that we know needs revisiting and are working on. We were hoping to have a dialogue with players about the effects of Power Projection on their personal play style, now that further changes to the landscape of Null Sec have been made, in the form of Aegis Sov. Although it has been a year since Phoebe, it is just a short month since Aegis, and we thought that this was the earliest we could start this conversation with our players.

With that in mind, we've been watching the comments both here on the official forums and on Reddit, and we are continuing our discussions with the CSM and continuing our efforts to take in player feedback and incorporate this into our designs for the game.

If you have any Ideas or feedback, please add this to the forums here, as this input is a vital part of our ongoing development of EVE Online.

Sorry but posting a list of ideas about how to change some important aspect of the game can save you tons of work later.
Don't open a conversation with players - you don't have to.

But putting a 50 point list of your ideas can be beneficial to whole community , including time of the coders.
You always stated that eve players are smart, and will eventually find holes in every design you do, or even will abuse mechanics not designed to act this way.

Why players cannot express feelings , doubts, ideas before coders get to work?

Simple example : troll ceptor.
Players told that this will be one of the main issues in the new sov, you tried to overcome this , changed modules, especially T2 version.
Currently the most annoying thing in new sov is : Troll ceptor.

In general, I support the comments made by mein glorious CEO, but will add a few more points.

I enjoyed the idea (though never the practice, cause scrub) of different jump ranges for different ships. It allowed for groups to be cut off from their support if they were careless, to be baited away from their dreads/supers/titan bridges. With everything being equal, one group from one staging system can project everything in 5ly, staggering this could lead to interesting situations/fights.
Increasing all jump ranges up would result in larger deadzones, staggering them could result in fun.

I strongly believe that fatigue should rapidly decay if returning to the system where it was initially generated, similar to going away to work, and coming back to a nice cup of tea - invigorating. Would allow for greater casual play involving big ships that are otherwise limited by their warp/align speeds in a truly local area. Fatigue should also have a drastically lowered cap, down to 24 hours. Anything higher then that is simply encouraging your customers to not bother logging in for x amount of days.

Please don't tie fatigue to hulls, no matter how much money my indy alts would make. Eve is rolling in ISK, cost cannot be used as a balancing factor when trying to limit the power of groups that already deploy in fleets worth trillions. But my indy alts would love you for it.

How would any such mechanic be balanced? For hyperspace would we get a warp speed and just go afk for half an hour waiting for the warp tunnel to end?

Linking benefits to sov would be grossly unfair to lowsec and npc null. If the mechanic needs balancing, balance it for everyone, not use it as a way to whip people into sov.

Capitals and heavy assets take so long to move around via gates, and are limited in number by wormholes, and as such are balanced relatively well. This falls apart when used with small, low mass, fast, potentially nullified ships, but that is a matter for those ships to be balanced around, not the movement mechanics in themselves.

Combat effectiveness reductions would just spell the end of anything with a jump drive or bridges, as fatigue is accumulated from the very first jump. Also, when a corp mate is tired at the end of a fight an forgets about his fatigue and jumps home, is now crippled in every ship for 30 days. A sure fire way to drive people away.

Move modes would be a crutch, and would be gamed unless it was made so restrictive as to be virtually unusable. Enjoy moving a super fleet and being caught with gimped rr or dps, it'll be the last time its done.

These again would be a crutch, and simply become a requirement and a barrier of entry. X group can ignore fatigue because they have the ISK/sp.

Local content are groups that I recognize, in space that I know. I'd like this to be at least one whole region, but two would be ideal.

10LY from capitol - as much i love it , as much i hate it.
1jump, so 5LY away is more than enough , and ONLY form and to capital jumps.

Why capitol? [let's call it capitOl to avoid confusion with capships]
Capitol is a special gimmik for sov mechanics, dont mess all in one pile.
How I see it - is to allow structures (like stationary cyno beacons) that are anchored anywhere in your sov. You can only choose one - basically, set your home port. Within the range of homeport, you can jump with less fatigue. You can change homeport once in a while, but not too often.

No. Your entire system will be completely avoided by most of the [rich] players by simply switching the ship.

Altering jump ranges - Needs to be adjusted
Altering jump fatigue curves -Space aids is too punishing, 8 days to 26 days? not fun
Moving jump fatigue from character based to ship based - sounds good, expecially effective versus cap fleets
Alternative FTL systems (Hyperdrive anyone?) - could be good
Sovereignty effects on Jump Fatigue (e.g. jumping out of/back into capitals reducing jump fatigue) - we need more incentives
Balance of Jump projection v's Gate projection v's Wormhole projection- agreed!
Jump Fatigue effecting combat effectiveness instead of limiting movement - bleh no way, 30 days of combataids? NOOO thank you

Move-Mode for Capitals for move ops : Hell no one wrong click and goodbye battle readiness
Active methods of reducing jump fatigue (Modules, Skills, Drugs): expensive drugs maybe
What does local-content mean to you?: People attacking or being attacked local content is a oxymoron, we live in a time with FTL travel

not trying to be rude, but why would you even have a round table if you weren't prepared to discuss this stuff in depth? hiding behind an NDA instead of discussing is a waste of time for everyone involved. it really begs the question, why even have a round table if you weren't prepared to go deep into this topic?