Player Features and Ideas Discussion

That Word gives me cancer!

Definitely an interesting read. In your test results, I would also have factored in the ISK cost. I'm sure you can define an ISK value for a 1 LY travel for 1 pilot, and then define the efficiency of each means of travel. A titan bridge is extremely efficient way to bridge a lot of people over a lot of LY, but it comes at a very high initial ISK cost. Not that ISK really matters for big coalitions though I guess.

Your PPP idea is an interesting one too. I'm not expert on force projection and all its implication in the 0.0 conflicts though, so I can't say if it'd solve the problem or not. I just like the idea of making distance matter a lot more.

The Problem is, every Suggestion is better then the current System, but aslong CCP is to coward to revamp SOV, Blobs and POS mechanics all these Threads are pointless.

I read your Blog, its a nice read and you do have some good ideas but until 2015/16 i dont see any chance that CCP will do something, its kinda silly...

The problem is, this is the issue leading up to blobs.

When you have a Coalition with thousands of carriers at their disposal, type a nice jabber ping "Everyone get to XX-YYY we're deploying" and bam, in 24h (or less, it may not be in 7 minutes but you can make it in an hour) you have a fleet-ready pile of bloodthirsty bastards on the other side of the 'verse. The swiftness at which a blob can move is staggering.

This issue is also a deciding factor when it comes to balancing sov itself. It's one thing to balance something that will see fights of 300 pilots, another - 4000. Given sov fights over smaller, remote regions of space where local entities are fending off local invaders can have as "few" as 100 pilots in Local (2 fleets of 40) and major coalition fights see as much as 4000 they really need to think the balance through and ensure it scales well.

Great article, recommend everyone read it in full.

This. JBs are vastly less immediate than cyno-based bridges, and in most ways work a lot more like gates... people can camp them, and shoot the people using them, and so on.

As a quick reality check, GARPA tells me that taking the CFC JB network, along the most efficient possible route, would make 373Z-7 to SVB-RE a 68 jump journey. Assuming for the moment that there's no significant average difference between a gate-to-gate warp and a gate-to-JB warp, that should only shave the travel time down by about 1/3. Which is certainly convenient, but it's not broken on the same order as jump drives are.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as mass movement and power projection goes. But I can't really see the justification for limiting the light years you can travel by so called 'teleportation.'


I could be a bit fuzzy on my numbers but 24 LY is more or less what a carrier can do in two jumps, yeah? A bit less?

Well from a smaller alliance perspective, your proposed system being capped at 24 LY is just as inhibiting as much larger alliances being able to move from one side of the map to another. Suddenly isn't very big, and we live fairly close to some really big names. Everything we do we have to keep that in mind. But if we wanted to go to, oh, IDK, Syndicate, for a few weeks vacation, it'd take literally a week to move enough ships over there to be effective, as we'd only be able to do one trip one way a day.

I certainly share your opinion that the ability to go everywhere all the time is a bit silly, but also don't think a LY cap like that is justifiable. As much as Eve is Real, it's still a game, and I(Nor a great many others I can imagine) don't want to spend a week moving ships so I can play the game, be there a week, then spend a week moving ships back. Moving Ops are already a pain the back side as they are.

In this case, the answer may be better served in a jump restriction timer. Wormholes already prevent multiple-cross jumping back and forth by locking out after a couple jumps, Jump drives having to recharge or re-align or cool down wouldn't be so far a stretch. Yes, you're right it would only delay the status quo, but it would also better reward the prepared, which is in line with Eve's mentality, as opposed to having 1 node on Ti-di functioning at 10% or less speed and the rest of Eve business as usual all going full speed ahead to the ti-di system's fight.

I also feel you're forgetting an important part of B-R5:

That fight was able to go on because parties involved made a pointed effort to NOT pile 3k+ Pilots into system. Multiple fights broke out in nearby systems, pinning re-enforcements and preventing the fight from escalating wildly. That level of strategic play is the answer to the mass piling of pilots into system. Choosing to NOT have everyone in system and deny your opponent the ability to bring in new ships rather than just blob the server into oblivion.


In summation, you've written an article that tries to address a problem in Eve. But your approach doesn't keep in mind that yes, this is a game. Even at double your LY rating per day, significant move ops(which can already take hours anyway) would not be possible. Suddenly at least has the luxury of almost all our pilots having carriers. But what of smaller alliances? Or for lack of a better term, poorer alliances? The ones where only a few have carriers and maybe a JF or two between them, who are trying to move? That would take them weeks? How is that good for Eve?

Read the entire article. I agree that force projection in Eve is too easy. There is quite literally no way to interdict travel without the traveler being either completely oblivious to the tactics and methods, or by meta-gaming to lock people's assets into station.

I still think an arbitrary limit of distance traveled over a given period of time is too complicated a solution. A simpler solution would be to simply add a cool-down timer to jump drives and bridges based on mass transported.

Yes, they already have to rechrge capacitor. But as Marlona indicated, with cap fits, refitting services, and even a Mobile Depot, that wait is pretty irrelevant. It simply makes no difference and is not an effective balancing method.

This would not adversely effect blops because they already plan for and operate under low-mass conditions due to fuel amount restrictions. Bridging blops also tend to spend most of their time sitting safely cloaked or docked.

Titan bridges typically move much larger amounts of mass per bridging cycle.

Capitals having much higher mass than blops would end up having a much longer cooldown. Since each jump-capable ship has a different mass, they would all have some variety in cooldowns, possibly making certain ones more desirable than others.

Perhaps give Minmatar caps a lower jump drive cooldown than normal so as to make them more attractive, since they are generally the least desirable cap ships at present.

The PPP is not meant to be a final solution. It is meant to allow some breathing room for other aspects of null and effectively, the rest of the game, to have changes made. Changes that on the first iteration, will most likely not be the final solution to them either.

It will function as a shimmy. Make a change here, then move over to another spot and make another adjustment. You keep going and end up back at force projection yet again. The difference is now you can make more changes that previously were not possible due to the other aspects of the game holding it back. Just like when you put a tire on your car. You don't just tighten down the first lug nut the entire way and then move on to the next. You go back and forth until you finally reach a point where the tire is on securely.

I agree that "teleportation" needs a change mainly the one for sub-caps that are bridged by titans.