These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sigras
Conglomo
#7301 - 2014-10-06 22:52:03 UTC
Tairon Usaro wrote:
So please allow me to be at least skeptic. I don't see how the new changes will solve the stagnation problem.

While I do acknowledge that the jump drive nerfs will make battles like B-R, Asakai, etc. near to impossible to happen, I dont see how these changes shall keep alliances from building coalitions. Force projection is a symptom not the root cause. To my eyes the root cause is the still existing massive incentive to blobb in sov-warefare. I would assume that the opposite of the intended purpose will happen with these changes: Caps and SCaps will be used in defense, making it more difficult for the poor aggressor to be victorious. Rich ones just have 2 sets of Caps ....

For the CFC to defend its space in any reasonable amount of time they will need 6-7 caches of cap ships not 2
Tairon Usaro wrote:
Sov warefare: How about deadspace shielded size limited skirmishes ? Think of two sets of "the maze" type accecel gates allowing size and number limited access to battle fields, where capture the flag games determine the outcome of a sov conflict for a system. lets say 5 battle fields with fleets sizes of 2x20 (max cuiser), 2x50 (max BS) 1x150 (all sizes) => 290 pilots each side max.
Quality instead of quantity ..... => no need to blobb, no need to form coalitions.

Even if this were a good idea which it isnt, this would be so easily gamed as to be laughable...

Consider this, I get in system with 600 ships from two different alliances which are both under my control. I fill up all the "battle fields" half with one alliance and half with another. then I have the alliance I want to have the system cap the flags while the other alliance does nothing. if the actual owner of the space shows up with 600 people it doesnt matter because the game wont let them into their own complexes because of the max player limit.

Unless you mean to say that the defenders MUST be from the alliance that owns the space which is equally moronic because it takes emergent gameplay out of the equation IE forming coalitions

Lastly it doesnt even solve your problem because I would still just blob the system and have a small portion of my fleet cap the flags while the blob prevents anyone else from getting into system to stop me
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#7302 - 2014-10-06 23:01:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale.

We have reached maximum rage fatigue. You need to release a revised dev blog now with proposed revisions. Thats the only way to get more input

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Gwailar
Doomheim
#7303 - 2014-10-06 23:01:50 UTC
Tairon Usaro wrote:
Sov warefare: How about deadspace shielded size limited skirmishes ? Think of two sets of "the maze" type accecel gates allowing size and number limited access to battle fields, where capture the flag games determine the outcome of a sov conflict for a system. lets say 5 battle fields with fleets sizes of 2x20 (max cuiser), 2x50 (max BS) 1x150 (all sizes) => 290 pilots each side max.
Quality instead of quantity ..... => no need to blobb, no need to form coalitions.


Holy cow that's a beautiful idea!

Heck, you could even make point buys like, you know, the Alliance Tournament.

I would love to see this implemented. Maybe not in every region, but in key regions scattered throughout null.

"Mmmmm. PoonWaffles."   --Mittens the Cat
Sigras
Conglomo
#7304 - 2014-10-06 23:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Gwailar wrote:
Tairon Usaro wrote:
Sov warefare: How about deadspace shielded size limited skirmishes ? Think of two sets of "the maze" type accecel gates allowing size and number limited access to battle fields, where capture the flag games determine the outcome of a sov conflict for a system. lets say 5 battle fields with fleets sizes of 2x20 (max cuiser), 2x50 (max BS) 1x150 (all sizes) => 290 pilots each side max.
Quality instead of quantity ..... => no need to blobb, no need to form coalitions.

Holy cow that's a beautiful idea!

Heck, you could even make point buys like, you know, the Alliance Tournament.

I would love to see this implemented. Maybe not in every region, but in key regions scattered throughout null.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

Just a simple explanation on why this is a terrible idea.

Im a small 1000 man alliance and I want to defend 1 system from goonswarm.

I get 290 of my people to sit in my complexes, and I get 290 people from a different alliance to play the "attackers" who all sit in my complexes and do nothing while my guys cap the flags. I have effectively made my system invulnerable to an attack force of unlimited size.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#7305 - 2014-10-06 23:07:16 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Tikitina wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread still full of fear mongering and deception?



Yea, They are going to take their toys and go elsewheres because they can't get it their way.

Some people can't or refuse to adapt I guess. This game has always been more than about the mechanics. Won't be the first time that this has happened in Eve though.

Let's be honest here. Most of them are not going anywhere.

Won't take "most of them" to have an impact.
I have 4 paid with $ subs which will expire between now and Xmas plus 4 more due in the early new year. I have up until now been happy to pay for my subs so pve activities for plex don't interfere with the little online time I have and that time can be spent doing what I login for - PVP.

I don't particularly like large scale warfare, preferring small gang fighting (with my capitals when the opportunity arises) over blob fleets.

I'll probably keep a subcap toon subbed but if these changes have the effect I believe they will, 7 toons will unsub. That is $100 a month CCP will not get.
My $100 isn't much on its own but if just 100 paid subs are lost, that amount suddenly becomes much more.

I have spent years training for the ships I fly, I don't want to have to sit down and add up how many days my capitals will be stuck at point X while i wait out fatigue. I don't want to join a blob alliance so I can in relative safety move my capitals through gates, to get to a fight.

There are better ways to reduce capital force projection than removing the ability of smaller groups to use them. We aren't the problem but will suffer the effects the most.

how is it that you dont see this change as a buff? for any small fleet operating in a limited area, this change is fantastic news. Now you can deploy your caps in combat without it being hot drop o'clock 23.5/7

Sure your jump range may be a bit more limited, but did you miss the part where you can use gates?

im not sure what possible small gang low sec application you could possibly be using your caps for that would be worse after the change.

Never said I lived in lowsec and if that is the option left to me, the result is the same.. Unsub capital toons.

I did mention jumping capitals through gates and as i said, I don't want to have to travel with a lot of other carriers plus a support fleet to be able to go through gates.

Small gang, where there may be 15 or 20 of us. 2 or 3 scouts, with cynos go out find us a target which we then jump on. Much of our time is spent doing Blops but when we can we like to use our caps. Jump fatigue is all but removing our style of play, it is by no means a buff. Our chances of being dropped by a larger group will increase with these changes as we would be FORCED to use gates in hostile territory.

Sorry but I'm not seeing any positives here for small gangs.

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.
Sienna Toth
Pulsar Phisics Shipyards
#7306 - 2014-10-06 23:12:14 UTC
Okay let me try this again. This time I'll leave out my comment about some people being incompetent.

If you read CCP Grayscales post their (CCP) objective is to encourage the caps to use Gate travel to encourage skirmishes. They theorize that the Jump cool down will cause jumping ships to choose the gates over jumping.

My contention is that their theory is flawed ! The players don't use jumps for speed of travel. We use the gates for 2 core reasons:

1) Safety: Jump past gate camps into secure locations
2) Tactical Surprise

If this goes into the build players will just plan their jumps and factor for the Jump Timer and it will not encourage gate travel.

All that said what could CCP do to encourage Gate Travel over Jump Travel?
They could allow a Gate to jump a player multiple gates and charge isk related to ship mass per additional gate hop. This could allow faster travel actually but it would be more serial and travelers more open to attack.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#7307 - 2014-10-06 23:12:54 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread still full of fear mongering and deception?



And Glorious tears. Being an optimist I always prefer to see it as the cup being half full. But no. Its damned full and overflowing. It's gonna be soo much fun...


It doesnt matter if your glass is half full or empty when it is filled with ****.

Sincerely,

A Realist....
Ice Dealer
Ice Dealer Corporation
#7308 - 2014-10-06 23:15:05 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Eigenvalue wrote:

CCP already said they stopped reading this thread at page 200 because apparently 2 days is long enough for players to think through the changes, discuss, and give feedback. Better than the CSM though!


We are still popping in and reading the thread, but I think what they meant was that we aren't going to be going page by page and responding to every post. People are not going unheard though.


Greyscale stopped responding on page 275. Almost 100 pages ago. It makes the users feel neglected. Even if he responds to 1 comment a day, it would feel like we're heard.

Also, as an aside:
I believe ccp could have more positive release information if the material was released like:
"Here is our solution we would like to release on x date, in y expantion, we would like feedback."
Vs the current:
"These are the changes we are going to make"

People panic and this simple action could perhaps decrease panic.

Also, to those who say "if you don't like it, leave":
Sure, I will plan on it if that's what needs to happen.
Or those that say, this is their game:
Oddly, we are customers for a software development company.
If I don't like what I'm getting, I'll go with a different company that can deliver. That's long term though, as the cause and effect of changes are not always forseen by everyone.
I'm sure CCP hasn't forgotten this.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#7309 - 2014-10-06 23:16:42 UTC
Hagika wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread still full of fear mongering and deception?



And Glorious tears. Being an optimist I always prefer to see it as the cup being half full. But no. Its damned full and overflowing. It's gonna be soo much fun...


It doesnt matter if your glass is half full or empty when it is filled with ****.

Sincerely,

A Realist....


Depending on how much fiber is in your diet you actually could have an issue getting it in the cup, So it leaves the is it half full or full open to interpretation especially if theres air pockets

Sincerely
A former Nutritionist

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#7310 - 2014-10-06 23:22:35 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
Hagika wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread still full of fear mongering and deception?



And Glorious tears. Being an optimist I always prefer to see it as the cup being half full. But no. Its damned full and overflowing. It's gonna be soo much fun...


It doesnt matter if your glass is half full or empty when it is filled with ****.

Sincerely,

A Realist....


Depending on how much fiber is in your diet you actually could have an issue getting it in the cup, So it leaves the is it half full or full open to interpretation especially if theres air pockets

Sincerely
A former Nutritionist



The word was p i s s =) No issue getting that into a cup. For the other substance, i just need 2 girls P
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#7311 - 2014-10-06 23:25:30 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
CCP Greyscale.

We have reached maximum rage fatigue. You need to release a revised dev blog now with proposed revisions. Thats the only way to get more input


BLOPS rage rage rage blah blah
Its all been said :)

Every day I'm wafflin!
Sigras
Conglomo
#7312 - 2014-10-06 23:26:52 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sigras wrote:
how is it that you dont see this change as a buff? for any small fleet operating in a limited area, this change is fantastic news. Now you can deploy your caps in combat without it being hot drop o'clock 23.5/7

Sure your jump range may be a bit more limited, but did you miss the part where you can use gates?

im not sure what possible small gang low sec application you could possibly be using your caps for that would be worse after the change.

Never said I lived in lowsec and if that is the option left to me, the result is the same.. Unsub capital toons.

I did mention jumping capitals through gates and as i said, I don't want to have to travel with a lot of other carriers plus a support fleet to be able to go through gates.

Small gang, where there may be 15 or 20 of us. 2 or 3 scouts, with cynos go out find us a target which we then jump on. Much of our time is spent doing Blops but when we can we like to use our caps. Jump fatigue is all but removing our style of play, it is by no means a buff. Our chances of being dropped by a larger group will increase with these changes as we would be FORCED to use gates in hostile territory.

Sorry but I'm not seeing any positives here for small gangs.

So right now you have 15-20 cap ships hugging a station with 2-3 scouts out there looking for a target that you can hot drop?

And you do this in 0.0 somehow? and you routinely travel a distance of more than 5 LY away from your cap staging system when you do this? (also you realize that a 5 LY operational envelope is the entire region of curse minus 3 systems plus about 1/5 of the great wildlands?)

Where in the hell do you operate?

additionally, it might call for a bit of a change in strategy, but I think that you could still reasonably play this way... no problem.
t'raq mardon
Laminated Metals
#7313 - 2014-10-06 23:39:48 UTC
Panther X wrote:
t'raq mardon wrote:
Panther X wrote:
I wonder if anyone has discussed being able to dock supers? If there's going to be a penalty, there should be a mitigating factor to the penalty, with skills and the ability to dock to "affect repairs" whatever. If the fatigue is going to run through downtime, then will a safe logoff be negated because of fatigue or jump timer? Is balance not de rigeur anymore?

If I can't log off safely, then in the immortal words of Russell Peters...
"Someone's gonna get a hurt real baaaaad"


yes, multiple times. As of right now they are NOT looking at it


I haven't read all the pages, so I must have missed that. Heck I haven't seen any responses from CCP nor ISD other than editing for bad content and trolling.

If we are getting hit with the major nerf bat, and yeah it looks like we are, it would be good to at least have a balancing or mitigating factor in it. Getting two penalties at one time for cyno travel seems a bit heavy handed. I'm not crying, or whining, just asking for them to slow down, let us get used to one mechanic at a time.

At this point though, I'm not expecting much, and just going to wait it out, try to understand what it;s going to do to me personally, how it effects my personal game and how I will have to adjust for fleets.

You only know what you know, and you don't know what you don't know.

Or, its always darkest before it goes completely friggin black




no worries. you can find Greyscales comments here. He put a good effort into following the thread and responding for a while. pretty impressive actually considering he didn't stop until it hit like 200 pages
Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#7314 - 2014-10-06 23:41:36 UTC
Opens opportunities for small groups. At this moment cant use caps for anything else than travel, every system
has a logged off cyno alt ready to trap. Fix logofski traps also and its all good.

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7315 - 2014-10-06 23:42:26 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread still full of fear mongering and deception?

Aren't you getting exactly what you wanted? No snark, I'm legitimately curious.

I wonder if the result will be what you expect.

To be frank, I am and then some. It pleases me the announcement of these changes alone is causing many players to come back to the game. Various non-bloc groups rubbing their hands and discussing how to finally be able to carve out a section of null for themselves.

We are all venturing into the unknown. Adventure has finally shown her face again and everyone is happy.

Well.. almost everyone.
Mona Me
poon-tang
#7316 - 2014-10-06 23:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mona Me
I think a lot of the butthurt is more that ccp seems to have a plan/goal that were not privy to. It takes a LONG time to train cap pilots and to suddenly think you wont be able to use them to good affect anymore will drive some players to quit with good reason.

I would like to hear from the dev's more than we are at the moment. They knew the s**t would hit the fan when they released this news, (there not new at dealing with handing out bad news) yet on Monday, they didn't even bother to respond once to the concerns except to slap our hand about forum rules. Keeping the player base in the dark is just rude. (to me at least) Even a quick stop in to addresse some of the major concerns would help. No, I doubt they can tell us much more at this point, but at least say something. Then at least players might be able to blow off some steam without unsubbing. As for not bothering to read the posts after 200, it seems to me that some of the best ideas came after this benchmark. (I'm sure they do) Players had a chance to calm down, work out sulitions (adapt) and come up with some good posable alternitives. I know they are going in implement the changes stated (with some tweeks) and were going to be stuck with them. If they ever came out and said "That was a good idea, were going to try to implement it", even if in the end, they could not. I just might faint. Were all human (even the dev's) but it would show more flexablity than they have shown in the 6 years I've been playing. (that I have seen anyway)

Even a hint at what they might only want to do or see happen in the future can help me plan for the long term. Even if they cant come through on any of it, it would show that they do/did have a long term plan/goal in place. (best made schemes of mice and men?) Right now, I feel just left in a limbo till we hear more on the subject. Should I continue to train caps or move on, etc? Poeple will seem to swallow almost anything if its feed to them in the right mannor. No on wants to have something stuffed down their throats...

As someone else said, I might be wrong and probally am.

Edit: I must have been "living under a rokh" because I did not see this one coming.
SanDooD
Perkone
Caldari State
#7317 - 2014-10-06 23:53:48 UTC
Incarna -> Summer of Rage
Phoebe -> Winter of Rage

TwistedXTwisted
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#7318 - 2014-10-07 00:00:48 UTC
SanDooD wrote:
Incarna -> Summer of Rage
Phoebe -> Winter of Rage


Oceanus -> Autumn of Nullbear Tears

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#7319 - 2014-10-07 00:01:17 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Gwailar wrote:
Tairon Usaro wrote:
Sov warefare: How about deadspace shielded size limited skirmishes ? Think of two sets of "the maze" type accecel gates allowing size and number limited access to battle fields, where capture the flag games determine the outcome of a sov conflict for a system. lets say 5 battle fields with fleets sizes of 2x20 (max cuiser), 2x50 (max BS) 1x150 (all sizes) => 290 pilots each side max.
Quality instead of quantity ..... => no need to blobb, no need to form coalitions.

Holy cow that's a beautiful idea!

Heck, you could even make point buys like, you know, the Alliance Tournament.

I would love to see this implemented. Maybe not in every region, but in key regions scattered throughout null.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.

Just a simple explanation on why this is a terrible idea.

Im a small 1000 man alliance and I want to defend 1 system from goonswarm.

I get 290 of my people to sit in my complexes, and I get 290 people from a different alliance to play the "attackers" who all sit in my complexes and do nothing while my guys cap the flags. I have effectively made my system invulnerable to an attack force of unlimited size.

Even better than defensive sbus

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
A1arica
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7320 - 2014-10-07 00:04:21 UTC
Would you please confirm the timing of this proposed change to Long-Distance Travel? As quoted on the dev blog

"Phase One contains the long-distance travel changes, as well as some other associated changes planned in Phoebe in November. These changes are not intended to be a silver bullet to fix all of Nullsec’s issues in one fell blow. Instead, they represent a significant improvement to specific areas of concern for Nullsec (and Lowsec) while also setting the stage for the later changes."

However it is my understanding that Oceanus is scheduled to be released November 4th and Phoebe December 9th.

At least based on the Fanfest presentation of the scheduled releases.
http://puu.sh/c2iml.jpg
Hyperion - Sept 23
Oceanus - Nov 4
Phoebe - Dec 9
Rhea - Jan 20
Thethys - Feb 7
Theia - Mar 17
Themis - April 4