These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jump Fuel Consumption based on ship size

Author
Peter Ford
Fat Mustache
#21 - 2014-05-23 09:29:16 UTC
Yeah BIG +++++
Janek666
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-05-23 09:42:44 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
This is not only to reduce "big blue wonder" , but only to make all thing more sensible.

Right now in eve terms the same amount of fuel use a "eco city car" and "16 wheel truck" while moving from point A to Point B


Yes, from that perspective it makes even more sense.
Anthar Thebess
#23 - 2014-05-24 23:04:09 UTC
Thank you.
More support is needed.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-05-24 23:17:51 UTC
Anthar, what are your thoughts on altering Supercapital mass, its implications, and how to deal with them? I ask because I am interested in a system which uses ship mass to determine jump fuel cost, but it could only fit what you and I believe is adequate fuel costs if supercapital mass were increased dramatically.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Anthar Thebess
#25 - 2014-05-25 10:18:46 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Anthar, what are your thoughts on altering Supercapital mass, its implications, and how to deal with them? I ask because I am interested in a system which uses ship mass to determine jump fuel cost, but it could only fit what you and I believe is adequate fuel costs if supercapital mass were increased dramatically.


My idea is not to base it on a mass , but on a subclass
1.Carrier fuel usage as base.
2.Dread burns a bit more
3.Mother ship far more than a carrier
4.Titans burning way more than a mothership.

Because right now titans - few dozen times bigger than a carrier use the same amount of fuel like a carrier for traveling 1 LY.
Ian Ovaert
Doomheim
#26 - 2014-05-26 11:15:20 UTC
LIKE IT!
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
#27 - 2014-05-26 17:59:14 UTC
Fantastic idea. From what I recall,using jump bridges and jump portals requires fuel based on ship size (mass in this case), so why shouldn't the immense size of a super or Titan cost that much more to move than a carrier? I think it goes a long way to improving the power projection situation with supers and titans.

Personally, I don't like the idea of B-R situations. Hundreds of the largest ships in the universe being killed in the same place at the same time seems unrealistic and contrived. However, that is the subject of a different thread, I'm sure!

So for this idea, totally plus 1!!

Cedric

Daoden
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-05-26 19:10:50 UTC
+1
Anthar Thebess
#29 - 2014-05-27 07:55:58 UTC
Thank you for support.
Still we need more for dev to notice the topic, and way more for make this change happen.
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-05-27 08:36:32 UTC
I disagree with this because increasing the cost will do absolutely nothing at all to limit force projection of major alliances, big groups like goons and PL make ridiculous amounts of isk, but rather will simply tax smaller players and smaller corporations cutting into their bottom lines. You're talking about increasing the price of gas basically, to hurt the rich, and ignoring the middle class.
Anthar Thebess
#31 - 2014-05-27 08:57:54 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
I disagree with this because increasing the cost will do absolutely nothing at all to limit force projection of major alliances, big groups like goons and PL make ridiculous amounts of isk, but rather will simply tax smaller players and smaller corporations cutting into their bottom lines. You're talking about increasing the price of gas basically, to hurt the rich, and ignoring the middle class.


Not exactly.
How often you move your titan on the other side of eve?
How often you drop it to shoot small tower?
How often you do this with 70 friends in titans and mother ships?

This will only impact, players that abusing limited CPU power of EVE nodes and make eve more REAL.
This will force 2 big bloobs to have their super capital fleet split in the whole area of their space.
This will promote subcapital battles.
This will also make those super capitals more vulnerable as they will be much more spread out.



Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
Care Factor
#32 - 2014-05-28 04:52:12 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
I disagree with this because increasing the cost will do absolutely nothing at all to limit force projection of major alliances, big groups like goons and PL make ridiculous amounts of isk, but rather will simply tax smaller players and smaller corporations cutting into their bottom lines. You're talking about increasing the price of gas basically, to hurt the rich, and ignoring the middle class.



Changing the cost of a 1LY jump from 400 isotopes to more than 2000 for a SC will most certainly have an effect on even the biggest alliances. Not just the fact that each titan/SC will burn more fuel, but also those huge alliances will have to sink more Industrial Time or liquid ISK into the acquisition of more fuel. This will definitely hurt the larger groups, and force a true decision about how, when, where and how much to escalate. Again, this idea is a great turn towards a better mechanism for controlled power projection.

Cedric

Anthar Thebess
#33 - 2014-05-28 06:46:19 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:

Changing the cost of a 1LY jump from 400 isotopes to more than 2000 for a SC will most certainly have an effect on even the biggest alliances. Not just the fact that each titan/SC will burn more fuel, but also those huge alliances will have to sink more Industrial Time or liquid ISK into the acquisition of more fuel. This will definitely hurt the larger groups, and force a true decision about how, when, where and how much to escalate. Again, this idea is a great turn towards a better mechanism for controlled power projection.


Thats one of the main points.
Additionally you will not have 100 titans sitting in one system - they will have to be more spread around.
If they are more spread out - then there is a bigger possibility to catch on of them.
At the same time , it will take longer to get to this titan to save it - so more time for others to kill it or escalate it.

Now big powerblock abuse their supercapital power by dropping titans, motherships and few carriers to reinforce and kill some small tower.
They do this because they have near enough supercapital force to kill every possible threat before someone could escalate this.

They are not doing this because they "can" , but because it is safer.
You can easily kill a sieged dread or a triaged carrier - but you will not do this to a titan or mothership.
Swolocz Boloskarl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-06-09 16:48:06 UTC
I agree with that, mostly because I've seen some Super Carrier Hot Drops on small sub-cap Gangs. Easy kills, Safe PvP.
In general first law of war is - big army have big upkeep cost, there is nothing like this in Eve.
Axe Coldon
#35 - 2014-06-09 17:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Axe Coldon
I like it. Makes sense. Why should only the JF need more fuel. Supers and titans are bigger then jf's.

But I don't see how this will change deployment. If a titan takes 6000 a ly it will need a bigger fuel bay. The argument they will be more spread out is..(insert fancy word here). They will likely concentrate around a supply station. And the big guys..can just get the extra fuel on hand at jump points. Either in a POS or in a station.

But I still like it as it makes sense..and the jf takes more so why not the others..okay repeated my self there.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Anthar Thebess
#36 - 2014-06-10 06:37:32 UTC
Axe Coldon wrote:
I like it. Makes sense. Why should only the JF need more fuel. Supers and titans are bigger then jf's.

But I don't see how this will change deployment. If a titan takes 6000 a ly it will need a bigger fuel bay. The argument they will be more spread out is..(insert fancy word here). They will likely concentrate around a supply station. And the big guys..can just get the extra fuel on hand at jump points. Either in a POS or in a station.

But I still like it as it makes sense..and the jf takes more so why not the others..okay repeated my self there.


Thank you for support.
Need more.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-06-10 06:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I believe the Anthar thould have a lower jump requirement.
Thee what I did there? Big smile

No? Sad


Anyway, I still support, even though you shot down my idea. Sad I'm still hurt over that, but I guess you had your reasons.

Edit: Know what? It would be totally awesome if Jump freighters could jump a lot farther and would have a much cheaper per-lightyear cost to the jump when they were empty as opposed to when they were filled with massive cargo.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Anthar Thebess
#38 - 2014-06-10 13:37:41 UTC
Thank you.
No dev response - so we need more support.
Benar Ellecon
Card games on MOTORCYCLES
#39 - 2014-06-10 15:15:20 UTC
Definitely a step in the right direction.
+1

Fly with your hair on FIRE!

Anthar Thebess
#40 - 2014-06-11 07:11:23 UTC
Thank you.
Calling for more support!