These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ian Ovaert
Doomheim
#41 - 2014-06-16 08:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ian Ovaert
CCP will never allow any thing that will hurt the big coalitions.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#42 - 2014-06-18 16:43:03 UTC
I would Rather they balance the usage between JF racial difference first, or spread it to all other capitals too, forcing everyone to use minmatar capitals for cheaper isotopes
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-06-18 21:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Ncc 1709 wrote:
I would Rather they balance the usage between JF racial difference first, or spread it to all other capitals too, forcing everyone to use minmatar capitals for cheaper isotopes
Having each one use a different kind of isotope is already a balancing factor. As sovereignty and residential statistics change over time, so, too, do the fuel prices. One race's fuel may be cheapest one day, but eventually the cheapest will be a different fuel.

But I'd also like to see JFs have fuel cost based on the mass of the ship plus the mass of goods they are carrying. That would make lighter loads cost less to haul. When you're hauling less, the Minmatar Jump Freighter becomes a naturally more attractive option.

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."

Jacid
The Upside Down
Forfeiture
#44 - 2014-06-18 21:35:34 UTC
All this seems logical .. Make ships that jump and bridge use fuel based off mass / class. In addition extender the fuel bay size to give them comparable ranges. But what do you do about ships that you basically nerf by this change? Titans come to mind.

The question is can we come up with roles for titans so that they are worth logging on. I have always though destroyable stations were an essential feature to balancing null sec. It seems to me that titans could be station killing ships. It would get them in space and get them used but not just for hot drops.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2014-06-18 21:39:50 UTC
Jacid, I think the right direction to move in is making Titans into corporation assets. Then people will stop whining about titans taking over a character and not being worth anything to that character. After all, it is corporations and alliances that use them, not individuals (unless you're Chribba and mine with them).

Once titans are corporation assets, all other sweeping changes to nerf them don't cause so much pain to their owners, unless they are trying to maintain them as personal assets, which they can do if they want but that shouldn't be a primary aspect of the things.

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."

HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#46 - 2014-06-24 07:30:44 UTC
+1 for the topic idea
Anthar Thebess
#47 - 2014-06-25 11:35:55 UTC
Thank you
More support!
FITTIpalti
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#48 - 2014-06-27 09:39:47 UTC
+1

Good idea
Kobieta z broda
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#49 - 2014-06-27 09:44:32 UTC
I'm liki this too
Kon Ryszard
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-06-27 09:46:17 UTC
All this seems logical ..

Bravo
Solairen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2014-06-27 11:37:55 UTC
Makes sense on a lot of levels and seems fairly simple to implement once the balancing math is done.

+1
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
Quantum Cafe
#52 - 2014-06-27 15:26:19 UTC
Somewhat +1 - but isn't the fact that they have different ranges very much a part of the issue.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Anthar Thebess
#53 - 2014-06-27 22:19:51 UTC
BoBoZoBo wrote:
Somewhat +1 - but isn't the fact that they have different ranges very much a part of the issue.

Not much, as they still burn the same amount of fuel to travel 1 LY.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-06-28 00:58:39 UTC
It just means they need to make more stops to cap up, which is a logistical stressor but doesn't actually make it significantly slower or intrinsically more costly to move them.

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
#55 - 2014-06-28 21:13:24 UTC
... and now carrier burns the same amount of fuel like a mothership or a titan.
Ian Ovaert
Doomheim
#56 - 2014-07-03 06:59:43 UTC
No one cares
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#57 - 2014-07-03 12:26:55 UTC
+1 for enhanced realism

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
Quantum Cafe
#58 - 2014-07-03 14:47:42 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It just means they need to make more stops to cap up, which is a logistical stressor but doesn't actually make it significantly slower or intrinsically more costly to move them.



Maybe, if you ignore that fact that: time = money = opportunity lost = risk exposure.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2014-07-03 20:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
BoBoZoBo wrote:
Maybe, if you ignore that fact that: time = money = opportunity lost = risk exposure.
time = money refers to a waste of time costing money as money-making ventures could have been furthered in that time. With no significant extra time expenditure in the movement of capital ships with a shorter jump range, little extra money is spent moving them. It's the same amount of fuel and a negligible amount of time. The people labor is still the vast majority of resources required for the effort and large nullsec blocs have an excess of people labor they aren't using such that these movements are essentially cost-free to them. This is not true of smaller groups.

So you're right, and you help to reinforce my point.


Ian Ovaert wrote:
CCP will never allow any thing that will hurt the big coalitions.

I am quite certain that CCP is not favoring any large groups in EVE for any reason other than the sheer number of pilots that can benefit from a change. The large coalitions do well with every change because they are quick to adapt and have the experience and resources to take advantage of every change. It has nothing to do with CCP favoring any group and it has everything to do with the expert capsuleers at the fringes of civilization.

In fact this huge ability for Nullsec blocs to adapt has actually resulted in the opposite: CCP aiming to boost the options available to smaller groups so that they stand a chance.

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
#60 - 2014-07-06 12:27:42 UTC
More support please.
If you like this idea post to keep it visible.
Thank you