These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jump Fatigue Feedback

First post First post First post
Author
Lugh Crow-Slave
#541 - 2016-05-29 07:41:58 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:




Frosty - Repackaging works for moving to a new place (rigs are cheap), only if you have JF pilots willing to do nothing else.


I don't see why you would need a JF tbh... Jump the cap all the way to where you want it, repackage it and install new set of rigs. It's not cheap for everyone's wallet to scrap rigs like that but I'm sure some people would do it.

Ok, I figured you were talking about moving larger amounts of subcaps.

Why though would you repackage a capital after having jumped it to its destination?
Where talking about fatigue, aren't we? Which last i checked had nothing to do with rigs.


you're a bit confused re read the entire convo we were talking about putting fatigue into the ship rather than the player
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#542 - 2016-05-29 13:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
I agree that intel is too readily available. I would like to see local nerfed in some manner. Maybe only ships going through gates or undocking from stations are tracked in local, and only for a certain period of time before you disappear, because who knows, you might have jump-drived out, or logged, or went through a wormhole.

When it comes to a cyno delay, I think the number could be worked. Maybe 60 seconds is too long, though I think you badly underestimate the tanking potential of recons. I know that over 70k EHP is possible with double web, scram, NOS and cyno using nothing fancier than heat (which will last for more than 60 seconds), and we're not even talking about a T3 cruiser. A delay would give the defensive ship a chance to try to burn out of scram range, kill the cyno, or nuet it/jam it and warp out. It also gives the offensive players a chance to counter these things, with EWAR or counter-nuets or whatever. Hotdrops could actually potentially turn into fights. Right now, they almost never turn into fights.




.... you think 70kehp is going to last 60s?????

lets pretend they can what about cov cynos with blops you need to be done and off grid generally within 45s of the cyno being lit or you're screwed.
(not to mention they don't even last long enough for your delay)

surprise is one of the main advantages of a cyno if you don't want to deal with it you can put down a jammer before the fight starts.


(i also support the idea of ships similar to HICs that can produce a local cyno inhibitor(just like a standard one no effect on cov ops cynos))


Against most ratting/site running subcaps, 70k ehp is plenty. Very few of them can kick out the 1200 DPS needed to crack one before help arrives, not to mention things like ECM drones, which can reduce incoming DPS. For tougher stuff, you can use a T3 cruiser. At 150k ehp, an overheating, polarized void, augmennted Ogre shield Vindicator barely has the DPS to break it in time. That being said, the thing I'm advocating for is a delay, 60 seconds was a semi-arbitrary number that could get tweaked a lot.

When it comes to covert cynos, I think the time should be smaller, how much is probably dependent on what the normal one ends up being.

An inhibitor is completely cost prohibitive. 55 mil a pop for a 1-time use item.

The thing that would make this work well would be a local nerf. Only ships going through gates or undocking from stations get tracked. That way, no one would know about the BLOPS gang you just cynoed into a remote part of syatem, and rather than waiting for your cyno delay to expire, you'd just get tackle and wait for your gang to land from warp. Cynos would still have a ton of utility, but it wouldn't be the instant curb-stomp that it is now.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#543 - 2016-05-29 15:46:14 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:




Frosty - Repackaging works for moving to a new place (rigs are cheap), only if you have JF pilots willing to do nothing else.


I don't see why you would need a JF tbh... Jump the cap all the way to where you want it, repackage it and install new set of rigs. It's not cheap for everyone's wallet to scrap rigs like that but I'm sure some people would do it.

Ok, I figured you were talking about moving larger amounts of subcaps.

Why though would you repackage a capital after having jumped it to its destination?
Where talking about fatigue, aren't we? Which last i checked had nothing to do with rigs.


It has if you go with the proposed idea someone had to tie fatigue to ships instead of the player. It involved diminished fighting capabilities on the "fatigued" ship but just like always, kinda forgot about the whole repackage + re-assemble = new ship...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#544 - 2016-06-03 23:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
James Zimmer wrote:


An inhibitor is completely cost prohibitive. 55 mil a pop for a 1-time use item.



......

the ships they are bridging/jumping through cost far far more than that
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#545 - 2016-06-04 10:47:35 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:




Frosty - Repackaging works for moving to a new place (rigs are cheap), only if you have JF pilots willing to do nothing else.


I don't see why you would need a JF tbh... Jump the cap all the way to where you want it, repackage it and install new set of rigs. It's not cheap for everyone's wallet to scrap rigs like that but I'm sure some people would do it.

Ok, I figured you were talking about moving larger amounts of subcaps.

Why though would you repackage a capital after having jumped it to its destination?
Where talking about fatigue, aren't we? Which last i checked had nothing to do with rigs.


It has if you go with the proposed idea someone had to tie fatigue to ships instead of the player. It involved diminished fighting capabilities on the "fatigued" ship but just like always, kinda forgot about the whole repackage + re-assemble = new ship...

Easily fixed, tie it to the type of ship. If you burned your fatigue in a Sin, you can't fly any Sin until your fatigue is gone but you can fly a redeemer or panther.

Pretty simple really.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#546 - 2016-06-04 11:10:05 UTC
from what they said at fan fest CCP is already considering just adding the fatigue to the hull. if they go that brought all we can do is hope they have found solutions to the issues pointed out when they first brought up fatigue
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#547 - 2016-06-04 11:58:22 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


An inhibitor is completely cost prohibitive. 55 mil a pop for a 1-time use item.



......

the ships they are bridging/jumping through cost far far more than that


I was talking from the point of PvE. You cannot go ISK-positive if you use them defensively. For big fleet fights, they have a purpose.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#548 - 2016-06-04 20:02:49 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


An inhibitor is completely cost prohibitive. 55 mil a pop for a 1-time use item.



......

the ships they are bridging/jumping through cost far far more than that


I was talking from the point of PvE. You cannot go ISK-positive if you use them defensively. For big fleet fights, they have a purpose.
Your talking about anom ratting in nulsec obviously..
You don't need cyno inhibs, ratting could not be safer - Intel channels, watching local, being in fleet - All help to make ratting in nul one of the safest ways to make isk.

Cyno inhibs were never designed to keep one guys isk machine safe, which could be why they cost what they do.
You want complete safety - Run missions in highsec.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#549 - 2016-06-04 21:47:06 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:


An inhibitor is completely cost prohibitive. 55 mil a pop for a 1-time use item.



......

the ships they are bridging/jumping through cost far far more than that


I was talking from the point of PvE. You cannot go ISK-positive if you use them defensively. For big fleet fights, they have a purpose.
Your talking about anom ratting in nulsec obviously..
You don't need cyno inhibs, ratting could not be safer - Intel channels, watching local, being in fleet - All help to make ratting in nul one of the safest ways to make isk.

Cyno inhibs were never designed to keep one guys isk machine safe, which could be why they cost what they do.
You want complete safety - Run missions in highsec.


You missed the context of the conversation. If you read back further, you'll see it. I want cynos to be balanced by something, and I was merely pointing out that cyno inhibs are not a viable defense in most circumstances. I don't want them to be less expensive, because that would be a tedious and annoying defensive strategy. Equally important (or perhaps mpre so) I also want local to be nerfed hard, with cynod in ships and ships entering through wormholes not even appearing in local chat at all.

I don't like how the defensive player has instant, perfect intel and can avoid almost any fight, or how the offensive player doesn't have to take any real risks to give his multi-billion ISK fleet perfect positioning on field. I would like to see more ships undocked in systems for longer periods of time, which gives both sides a chance to manuever against each each other.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#550 - 2016-06-05 00:25:00 UTC
you have to

A) get a cyno on feild

B) ensure the target can not leave b4 the cyno goes up and ships jump in

you then need to ensure that the fleet you just jumped in is protected from any counter drops or reinforcements while you wait out your fatigue and capacitor

the is risk there is balance

only time this can really be seen as overpowered is to a ratter that forget watching local was not even watching d-scan

what you want is a way to remove something that is incontinent to a game play style balance be damned.


you have tools available to defend yourself but claim they are to incontinent? that has to be one of the most entitled things i have ever heard on the forums. At least when freighter pilots ignore their tools they say they just don't work rather than coming right out and saying the tools are tedious
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#551 - 2016-06-05 05:31:04 UTC
The tool (there are not multiple) is simple, and used constantly, much to the dismay of most hunters: +1 nuet in local = dock up, otherwise, get hotdropped. I don't like binary systems like that, so I'd like to see the grey area between both extremes expand.

I think there was a misunderstanding when it came to my point about cyno inhibs. I just wouldn't support making them cheap because I think there are much more interesting ways to balance cynos out.

When it comes to your points:

Getting a cyno on grid: Simple, just warp around and d-scan in a covops ship until you find them. Unless they're in a site or a safe, you don't even have to use probes.

Ensure the target cannot leave... fit a scram and a web, press F1 F2, and wait about 4 seconds.

Counter drops: These are a valid threat if there is a fleet already sitting on a Titan waiting to drop and the ratter has a cyno, or if a defense fleet is already formed and is 1 jump or less away (and 1 jump is pushing it). Otherwise, just jump around safes and use a cap booster.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#552 - 2016-06-05 06:57:38 UTC
how is local, D-scan, intel channels, and a cyno inhibitor only one tool.

+1 neut in local =dock up or get hot dropped??

except there are plenty of ppl moving around with no intent to hot drop you so its +1 neut in local dock up or maybe get hot dropped. (not to mention you can get grabbed b4 you even manage to align and warp) so not binary.


but the biggest issue of all is your out there solo and feel the risk you take being alone is unjustified. I mean we even have a timer we start from when our scout first reviles him self. This timer counts down from 2m. we do this because most of the time if you drop on some one from a competent group you have a predictable schedule.

1:30 unorganized panicked response to drop possible(friendlies in system hearing their buddy on coms)
1:15 first chance of an organized response showing up(high risk of tackle)<- by this point we should be gone
00:45 larger ships logi t3s possible cynos(we screwed up)
00:15 how the hell are we still alive and why are we still on grid?(they screwed up)
00:00 ??? O.o

do things always go this way ofc not but it gives us a very good idea of where we are and what risks we currently face.

but if you are out alone or in a group that does not have proper infrastructure then we have all the time in the world to hold your ship and laugh at you in local.

your idea however is no hot drops ever make cynos only useful for moving fleets around. I don't do it it affects my gameplay therefore remove it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#553 - 2016-06-05 07:21:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
from what they said at fan fest CCP is already considering just adding the fatigue to the hull. if they go that brought all we can do is hope they have found solutions to the issues pointed out when they first brought up fatigue


I'm gonna laugh my ass off if they forget the repackage deal.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#554 - 2016-06-05 07:40:41 UTC
i would not put it passed them....
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#555 - 2016-06-05 12:44:38 UTC
I guess at the heart of it, you're right: I want cynos to primarily be a way of moving ships, not a way to instantly apply damage. If you use cynos to inject friendly ships directly into a fight, there should be some downsides to that when compared warping them in. Just my opinion.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#556 - 2016-06-05 18:39:41 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
I guess at the heart of it, you're right: I want cynos to primarily be a way of moving ships, not a way to instantly apply damage. If you use cynos to inject friendly ships directly into a fight, there should be some downsides to that when compared warping them in. Just my opinion.


Jump fatigue isn't a downside?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#557 - 2016-06-05 19:21:21 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
I guess at the heart of it, you're right: I want cynos to primarily be a way of moving ships, not a way to instantly apply damage. If you use cynos to inject friendly ships directly into a fight, there should be some downsides to that when compared warping them in. Just my opinion.


Jump fatigue isn't a downside?


Not when you approach Eve with a victim mentality.

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

James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#558 - 2016-06-06 13:01:52 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Zimmer wrote:
I guess at the heart of it, you're right: I want cynos to primarily be a way of moving ships, not a way to instantly apply damage. If you use cynos to inject friendly ships directly into a fight, there should be some downsides to that when compared warping them in. Just my opinion.


Jump fatigue isn't a downside?


Not when you approach Eve with a victim mentality.


That doesn't even make sense. Also, I assume you missed the point where I said I wanted to see warp fatigue go away entirely.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#559 - 2016-06-06 13:21:36 UTC
The discussion has been long, and it seems people are not aware of the entire conversation, so I've decided to consolidate my point of view in a single post. This is merely my opinion.

The issues (as I see them)

1. Jump fatigue, while addressing a valid problem, is a bad mechanic, because it penalized people for playing the game. A system to limit capital projection should feel more natural.

2. Hotdropping is a bad mechanic. The tool is too good to be used for such little risk.

3. Local is too powerful. There should not be such an easy, reliable way to avoid getting ganked.


My idea to solve these issues:


1. Jump fatigue goes away.

2. Cyno's get a delay after they light before things can go through.

3. Cyno's cannot be lit within a certain distance of each other.

4. Cyno's have mass limits, like wormholes.

5. Local only shows people who went through a gate or undocked from a station. People who entered though a wormhole or cyno don't show up unless they choose to talk.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#560 - 2016-06-06 22:06:30 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
The discussion has been long, and it seems people are not aware of the entire conversation, so I've decided to consolidate my point of view in a single post. This is merely my opinion.

The issues (as I see them)

1. Jump fatigue, while addressing a valid problem, is a bad mechanic, because it penalized people for playing the game. A system to limit capital projection should feel more natural.

2. Hotdropping is a bad mechanic. The tool is too good to be used for such little risk.

3. Local is too powerful. There should not be such an easy, reliable way to avoid getting ganked.


My idea to solve these issues:


1. Jump fatigue goes away.

2. Cyno's get a delay after they light before things can go through.

3. Cyno's cannot be lit within a certain distance of each other.

4. Cyno's have mass limits, like wormholes.

5. Local only shows people who went through a gate or undocked from a station. People who entered though a wormhole or cyno don't show up unless they choose to talk.
Did you read what you typed before posting it?
2 and 3 you list as issues, then go on to make them even more powerful with 5 in your fix list.

1. Jump fatigue isn't going away, what we need is a mechanic that doesn't punish activity. Balancing fatigue around weekend warriors is just stupid.
A simple 5 or 10 minute delay between jumps, removes the ability to quickly traverse the universe without punishing players who use jump mechanics (including gates) correctly. But CCP like limiting how we play the game so punitive fatigue is here to stay.

2. How long a delay? A regular cyno last 10 mins, which is normally 9 mins longer than it is needed for.
Any delay on using cyno's would totally break logistics.

3. Same as 2. While it sounds good in theory, would be game breaking for logistics.

4. Yeah I could go for that, as long as it is balanced so the cyno duration matches its use. Don't need a 10 minute cycle time for a module only used for 30 or 40 seconds.

5. Just no. Ganking/hotdropping is in a good place, you just need to plan it right. Making it easier by limiting local, no.
You want to play without local - Stay in WH space, there are enough of them to keep you occupied for years.
> Nulsec doesn't need to become a second WH space.

Eve should be about more than ganking and N+1, unfortunately that is the current design devs have gone with and the meta many groups prefer to use. It has nothing to do with fatigue, it is just the risk averse nature of pvp in Eve.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.