These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound

First post First post First post
Author
Jethro Winchester
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5081 - 2014-10-03 08:24:31 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
A lot of people really need to ask, who will these changes hurt the most? I'll give you a hint: It's not groups like CFC, PL or N3, who have the manpower & resources to work our way completely around this.


Why would the changes "hurt" anyone? That's not their intent or purpose.

It will change the way people move capitals around.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Megarom
Shiva
Northern Coalition.
#5082 - 2014-10-03 08:24:54 UTC
I think it was a bad idea to have the extreme example in the dev blog. Many people seem to think that if you travel by jump drive you will always hit hours of cooldows. Those hours of cooldown only come into play if you are stupid or are going to log of anyway and can sleep on the longer cooldown. If a cap is trying to travel as fast as possible it can reach the speed of 0.1 LY / minute or 5 LY jump every 50 minutes. Making total travel time in the example 10 hours which is still pretty extreme, but not the wall you hit if you jump the moment the cooldown is over.

I'll add my voice to the crowd that says the sustained travel speed is too low. Grayscale mentioned that the benchmark speed from gate travel was 3M/ 1LY which equals 1/3 light years / minute making jump travel speed 0.1 less than one third of the benchmark 0.333...


I'm heading into notes to self territory now, but I noticed that there were at least couple of people interested in the maths so I'l post anyway.

After posting my earlier post I tried to go to sleep and started wondering why is it that the sustained travel speed matches the decay rate regardless of coeficients in the cooldown function. It dawned to me that the cooldown function has nothing to do with the travel speed cap only how fast it is reached so effecting the burst travel speed. Only requirement for the function is that it grows faster than linear growth though for practical reasons you want it to reach 5/(decay rate) (50 in our case) in 2 to 3 jumps.

Simple polynomial function like

cooldown = (fatigue +1)^2

will also reach the cap and be limited by and by tweaking the numbers you can similar cooldowns on the first 2 jumps as in Grayscale model.

I would describe the jump speed limit system as an inverse resource system. This means that when you do something you generate negative resource that you have to let decay before doing the action again. Similar results could be reached with a more traditional resource system where you would generate 0.1 LY of jumpability / minute and you consume jumpability acording to the lightyears traveled. The distance of burst travel would be limited by the maximum storage capacity of jumpability for example 10.
voetius
Grundrisse
#5083 - 2014-10-03 08:25:29 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
You know some words and phrases from CCP Greyscales devblog really eat at me:

"...we would anticipate..."

"This seems likely to ..."

"... ,we see the potential for..."

"... it seems plausible that..."

"... , but we don't want to make any firm predictions in this area."


Is it just me, or does this type of language really bother anyone else regarding such an important change?


I think he is being realistic. In a complex system such as EVE or other virtual world, any non-trivial change is going to have unforeseen consequences. The best you can do once you have determined what you think is the right approach to a change is to eliminate obvious loopholes and consider edge cases - the community feedback in threads like is and CSM feednback to a working group are ways to serve that purpose.

Other people than you have said that CCP needs to come up with a "better" plan or test things or simulate them : unfortunately there is only so much you can do along those lines because when the players get involved with changes like this "emergent" effects will come out.
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5084 - 2014-10-03 08:25:31 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Remember that most of those players where playing different games while waiting for pings.



This is fairly normal when you reach a certain state in EVE. If CCP promote a style of game play which consumes a vast amount of time to do anything yet you're not actually required to do very much during that time, it's hardly a surprise.

Some of these changes are good, some are completely daft and some further promote this sort of timer based game play which means players go AFK while they wait for an alarm clock. It's not an elegant solution.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#5085 - 2014-10-03 08:26:43 UTC
pretty funny seeing the disconnect between the warp speed of freighters vs all other capitals, and that it matters now
Anthar Thebess
#5086 - 2014-10-03 08:31:56 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Remember that most of those players where playing different games while waiting for pings.



This is fairly normal when you reach a certain state in EVE. If CCP promote a style of game play which consumes a vast amount of time to do anything yet you're not actually required to do very much during that time, it's hardly a surprise.

Some of these changes are good, some are completely daft and some further promote this sort of timer based game play which means players go AFK while they wait for an alarm clock. It's not an elegant solution.

Well the issue was that those players where effectively ruining game play for groups of players.
They login just for ping, hotdrop, and logout to do something else.
This can finally change.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5087 - 2014-10-03 08:32:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Moons supply less isk than an ice miner per month.

Renters make us a lot of isk but we make massive amounts in high sec.


loool, i love this one

keep telling us how moons supply less isk than an ice miner per month.

...a miner that mines non-stop, 24/7 with absolutely miniscule interaction by a player required to continue doing so
and then multiply that by...well, i'm sure you can tell us how many of these completely useless moons you have

That's why no one even pays attention to those towers.

The reason you make isk in high sec isn't because there isn't isk to make in null.
Or because highsec is patently better.

It's because the isk your alliance makes is appropriated and not directed into your member's wallets.

Your talking points are as tired as they are slanted.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."

Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5088 - 2014-10-03 08:33:32 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Remember that most of those players where playing different games while waiting for pings.



This is fairly normal when you reach a certain state in EVE. If CCP promote a style of game play which consumes a vast amount of time to do anything yet you're not actually required to do very much during that time, it's hardly a surprise.

Some of these changes are good, some are completely daft and some further promote this sort of timer based game play which means players go AFK while they wait for an alarm clock. It's not an elegant solution.


Yeah they might.

Or they might just get into a subcap and undock instead of waiting for the next slowcat hotdrop to happen. Idea

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."

Gho Higyidr
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#5089 - 2014-10-03 08:36:23 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Remember that most of those players where playing different games while waiting for pings.



This is fairly normal when you reach a certain state in EVE. If CCP promote a style of game play which consumes a vast amount of time to do anything yet you're not actually required to do very much during that time, it's hardly a surprise.

Some of these changes are good, some are completely daft and some further promote this sort of timer based game play which means players go AFK while they wait for an alarm clock. It's not an elegant solution.


Agree with you here. Increasing the time it takes to do something that already takes TIME to do in current mechanics.. is the most .. I don't even have a word for it. Again I speak as an advocate for change.. but CHANGE doesn't have to be to torch the very aspect of null. Capital Ships rule nullsec, simple. Nerfbatting them into gate-jumping super battleships that take weeks to a month to be able to jump any distance.. is downright frustrating.

I'm just more hung up on the fact that CCP will be gutting out the JF and rorquals.. and possibly even giving BLOPS a dead buttcheek... It's not making nullsec more 'fun' it's going to make it miserable.

EVE is already a 'job'. Now it looks like overtime and doubletime are in order to even fuel a tower more than 5LY away. But who am I kidding? EVE isn't about the player, it's about the subscriptions and money right?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#5090 - 2014-10-03 08:37:53 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Moons supply less isk than an ice miner per month.

Renters make us a lot of isk but we make massive amounts in high sec.


loool, i love this one

keep telling us how moons supply less isk than an ice miner per month.

...a miner that mines non-stop, 24/7 with absolutely miniscule interaction by a player required to continue doing so
and then multiply that by...well, i'm sure you can tell us how many of these completely useless moons you have

That's why no one even pays attention to those towers.

The reason you make isk in high sec isn't because there isn't isk to make in null.
Or because highsec is patently better.

It's because the isk your alliance makes is appropriated and not directed into your member's wallets.

Your talking points are as tired as they are slanted.


Go look at the income you get from a tower before saying these things, it will stop you from looking stupid.
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#5091 - 2014-10-03 08:38:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Easthir Ravin
Someone break out the crayons, and use small words, because I just do not see how any of this nonsense is going to help. Not to mention this absolutely takes a dump on any common sense in the lore. "Thousands of years in the future and technology goes backwards..."???

Simple fix, 1) player built gates to wormhole systems, (gives more space and places for power blocks to go.)
2) Give newer and more challenging worm hole space to the current group of wormholer's. (deeper into sleeper space?)
3) Increase influence of current high sec and low sec factions into boarder areas (opens up the galaxy through intelligent civil expansion.)

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"

Edwin Wyatt
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5092 - 2014-10-03 08:38:34 UTC
Alec16 wrote:
I don't play this game for balance, I play it for fun. Making travel tedious and boring is not fun. CCP will lose so many subscriptions if they push these changes through.


Its not "If" but "When" CCP is making these changes. Either Adapt or Die.

Oh and much like the rest of EVE we don't consider pressing the "I win button" as fun either.

CCP knows that everyone that quits will come back, most have way to much invested into EVE to walk away longer than a few months, once everyone goes back to having fun, the haters will be back, because there is no other game like EVE.

Davionia Vanshel
Open University of Celestial Hardship
Art of War Alliance
#5093 - 2014-10-03 08:40:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Davionia Vanshel
Threadnaught ate post.

Tl; Dr version:


Don't nerf JFs.

If you have to Nerf JFs, double their range to 10LY and double the rate they accumulate fatigue from 0.1 to 0.2. Math works in terms of the ability to jump 30LY before being completely screwed unless they wait out their timers - same as per CCP proposal.

That's still broken so you need a formula for geometrically and/or logarithmically adding fatigue and jump time.

[I could not be stuffed showing the math a third time or explaining why it works and having my post eaten by the thread again It just works in a less broken way than what was contemplated by CCP]
John Selth
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#5094 - 2014-10-03 08:40:37 UTC
TimeDrawsNigh wrote:
Counter proposal for the jump delay timer.

Link below is a google excel doc. of cumulative delay timer that incrementally gets longer with each jump.

http://bit.ly/1rOpzTs

It’s a logarithmic scale.

So when you jump you get two timers.

First timer is the jump drive timer; the second timer is jump drive activation delay.

The jump drive timer is a base 30 minutes and every time you make a jump it will record the amount and add +1 to the "Jumps Made Since Timer Began" value. The jump drive timer will reset back to 30 min every time you make a new jump.
The jump drive activation delay is the timer you get once you have jumped. It’s the time you have to wait till the next jump can be made.

The equation for this is below.

http://i.imgur.com/EQpv4Cv.png

The principal of what happens here is that your delay timer gets bigger with each jump. The increment between each subsequent timer gets smaller, causing the graph to plateau out into a logarithmic curve. Eventually after so many jumps the delay timer will reach the same value as the jump drive timer, at which point it’s better with it out entirely and then start the process over.

Initially we found a problem with the function where doing three really short distance jumps would make the times later overall shorter but that has been fixed with the “Jump Amount Modifier.”

So e.g.
Jump 1 > 4.19 LY > delay timer of 6.42min > cumulative time 6.42min
Jump 2 > 4.7 LY > delay timer of 9.72 min > cumulative time 16.14min
Jump 3 > 4.206 LY > delay timer of 11.73 min > cumulative time 27.86min
Jump 5 > 4.564 LY > delay timer of 13.28 min > cumulative time 41.14min
Jump 6 > 1.855 LY > delay timer of 14.15 min > cumulative time 55.29min

Notice the increase in time getting smaller but the time overall still get longer. Bit like the diminishing returns of stacking nerf.

This Post and Equation was worked on by Sieonigh and myself.

Edit: We made this formula under the assumption that Jump Freighters and Rorquals do NOT have the 90% reduction, rather we think Black Ops should have this reduction (which we're implementing).

Edit #2: We've updated the Formula to include a proposed Black Ops Modifier (pretty much gets CCPs Jump Freighter and Rorqual 90% Modifier). You can view this on the Google Docs Spreadsheet listed above or by clicking the below link to the updated formula for Black Ops.
http://i.imgur.com/GdLdM3R.png



I am in full support of this edit! I mean if we are going to be forced through these ~silly~ jump changes then this is who we should change and or steer them with respect to blops. I can safely say that the entirety of the Bombers Bar Staff, as well as many of the participating pilots are completely for this edit. The Bar has always been extremely helpful of getting new guys into fleet participation, teaching them more complex meta forms of fleets with good results. Keeping blops usable will continue (for us at least) to provide content to our participants as well as keep the many covops groups of eve happy and thriving. Don't believe me Grayscale? Stop by the channel anytime and I will be glad to show you how we help the new player (that you are trying to boost with this change).
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5095 - 2014-10-03 08:41:45 UTC
Gho Higyidr wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Remember that most of those players where playing different games while waiting for pings.



This is fairly normal when you reach a certain state in EVE. If CCP promote a style of game play which consumes a vast amount of time to do anything yet you're not actually required to do very much during that time, it's hardly a surprise.

Some of these changes are good, some are completely daft and some further promote this sort of timer based game play which means players go AFK while they wait for an alarm clock. It's not an elegant solution.


Agree with you here. Increasing the time it takes to do something that already takes TIME to do in current mechanics.. is the most .. I don't even have a word for it. Again I speak as an advocate for change.. but CHANGE doesn't have to be to torch the very aspect of null. Capital Ships rule nullsec, simple. Nerfbatting them into gate-jumping super battleships that take weeks to a month to be able to jump any distance.. is downright frustrating.

I'm just more hung up on the fact that CCP will be gutting out the JF and rorquals.. and possibly even giving BLOPS a dead buttcheek... It's not making nullsec more 'fun' it's going to make it miserable.

EVE is already a 'job'. Now it looks like overtime and doubletime are in order to even fuel a tower more than 5LY away. But who am I kidding? EVE isn't about the player, it's about the subscriptions and money right?

Actually, are the time aspects of the JF changes necessarily so bad? I would've thought the LY changes would have much more of an impact, especially considering that the haulage guys can either utilize more alts and just change their delivery method to a pony express style of delivery, i.e. JF guy 1 takes leg 1, JF guy 2 takes leg 2 etc.

The LY change means that some things are potentially not even viable to reach, like deep space, and I would've thought people would be more up in arms about this. I kind of like it, because it does exactly what CCP wants, i.e. make space larger and more strategic, but I can also appreciate the added difficulty this does create for deep space inhabitants.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#5096 - 2014-10-03 08:42:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Is the balance for Black Ops final?
No. Please give feedback!

give them a fatigue bonus.

wait, nevermind. I jumped the gun and in fact I shouldn't be speaking on this. I need to remember to sit on suggestions for at least a day.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5097 - 2014-10-03 08:43:21 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Rudina wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


No, one of the key points of this change is to force the Goon capitals to choose a home system and to make it INCREDIBLY painful for them to move to far away places. This means that adequately responding to challenges to your far flung space, especially multiple simultaneous ones by capital fleets, will stretch you to the breaking point. This should naturally lead to consolidating space, and opening up more opportunities in your former outlying sov. Giving more mobility to caps would entirely undermine that.


Your impression that we won't simply have multiple ship cashes around our sov and abuse jump clones and interceptors to get to them is quite cute.

But this isn't about the cfc, it's about being able to use your caps as a small corp alliance within your own region or not being forced to sit through 4 hour move ops to move from placid to aridia for a wormholes to move his carrier through a connection.


You won't be able to cache caps in every far flung region of your sov. Your far out renters are going to get hellcamped and pack out if you can't defend them. At some point it wont even be worth the effort for you to maintain sov there (who would want to rent?), and you will consolidate to your core areas, where you can easily cache caps and form defense fleets. And that will open up all those regions you abandon to new groups who actually want them, not just groups looking for their own personal version of highsec farming under CFC protection. So yes, tying down the caps of small groups is surely worth it if it means that the caps of the big groups are tied down as well, and their vast territory rendered indefensible.

You do realize that you can do all of this NOW, right? You just can't forcibly take the sov from someone, but you can harass the **** out of them.
Big Lynx
#5098 - 2014-10-03 08:44:00 UTC
Those huge streams of tears prove that the changes are undoubtful the right way. congrats CCP!
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#5099 - 2014-10-03 08:44:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Aiyshimin wrote:

Why would the changes "hurt" anyone? That's not their intent or purpose.

It will change the way people move capitals around.


The effects to carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers and titans overall are reasonable. I think it could use some tweaking, but on that front things are basically okay. Not perfect, but I'm not really complaining.

Where it hurts is the effect on jumpfreighters and jumpbridges.

Jumpbridges are essentially removed, rather than preventing their use for crossing the galaxy, it prevents their use even for intraregion travel. This appears to be a change intentionally backdoored under the guise of stopping "long distance" travel. Jump bridges are one of the few real advantages of owning space.

The effect on jump freighters is the big one though, it makes the logistics of living in nullsec far far more difficult. Getting resources from nullsec for sale in highsec and getting supplied from highsec into null depends on the use of jump freighters. This is not something unique to the coalitions, very much the opposite, the coalitions own the portals to highsec. All those smaller groups trying to get by in nullsec? How are they supposed to get supplies? Is MOA supposed to take their 30 man fleet and escort a freighter through CFC space, within hotdrop range of our titan bridges?

The jump freighter nerfs hurt _everyone_ who is trying to get by in nullsec, not just the established powers, and it's the smaller groups who suffer the most.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5100 - 2014-10-03 08:46:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Go look at the income you get from a tower before saying these things, it will stop you from looking stupid.


No, please. After you, I insist.

Enlighten us. Show me the errors of my ways.

Tell us how much one makes in a month and how utterly miniscule that amount is when stacked alongside moons ALL ACROSS THE GODAM GAME

I'm sure it's insignificant.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."