These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7781 - 2014-10-08 16:47:43 UTC
Mister Miahgi wrote:
Those super capital pilots wouldn't be so bored if there was new content to distract them.


Such as the blue donut actually doing some fighting?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#7782 - 2014-10-08 16:49:05 UTC
Dinger wrote:

- Change all currently passive resource generation to the point where it is active and both disruptable and destructible, moon goo especially.

where did this fanfic originate that paints moongoo as being indestructible and unmolestable

have you tried shooting a moon mining tower, I recommend dreadnaught class space wessels for the task

siphons are also good at screwing with moon havers
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7783 - 2014-10-08 16:50:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Mr Epeen wrote:

When applying for Goon membership, is there a question concerning your ability to use use proper punctuation, capitalization and grammar?

And if you answer, "Yes, I can type at more than a grade two level in English" you get denied?

Mr Epeen Cool

on the contrary, our posters have an extremely advanced understanding of punctuation, capitalization, and grammar

the type punctuation, capitalization, and grammar you use in your writing is a method of conveying unspoken meaning to the reader. what you call 'proper' is merely the type you use when you want to convey certain views you might hold regarding the reader
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7784 - 2014-10-08 16:55:37 UTC
mynnna wrote:
I've been playing with this for a couple days, and here's the adjustment I propose:

Fatigue = (Fatigue Before Jump + Distance of Jump)^(Destination Distance from Origin * A + B)

Distance from origin is just the straight-line distance in light years. Origin is set when you make a jump with 0 fatigue and can be reset when you are back to 0 fatigue (it could also be available to reset after a period of time of several hours regardless of fatigue, which is also interesting). A and B are just constants to tweak for balance. A sets how far from your origin you can go before fatigue really starts ramping up quickly; that distance is 1/A light years. B is just a tuning knob, especially handy for tweaking the effect on short range travel. Individual ships could get bonuses to one or the other, as well. All the other mechanics about fatigue work identically. A = 0.05 and B = .3 generate interesting results, for sure.

The effect of this is that short range travel, such as within your own region, isn't punished as though it's exactly like long distance travel. It's important to note that that isn't the same as "not punished at all" but rather that it imposes interesting choice on that movement. The industry player might ask himself whether he wants to take a gate to the expensive factory next door (three minute round trip, for example) or the bridge to the factory in the next constellation, which is cheaper but has a six minute round trip. The pilot PvPing and defending his home from roamers might decide whether taking that third bridge in two hours is worth the ten minute wait, worth not being able to get back around in that time. As proposed by the blog, neither player can make more than a few jumps before effectively losing the ability for the entire play session. Heck, even the force seeking to cross a long distance in EVE can decide whether they want to get there faster or avoid obstacles but impair their mobility upon arrival, or take it slow but have more full mobility. And in an invasion, both the invaders and defenders would have the benefit of their cyno movement being local and so somewhat less restricted, allowing for a nice balance between the current paradigm where the target region plus three regions surrounding it are the battlefield, and the paradigm of this blog. where lack of mobility restricts the battlefield to just one or two systems.

It also nicely addresses some complaints of the thread. Blackops battleships don't get rendered completely ineffectual, because most of their movement takes place within a limited distance from a staging location. Jump Freighters would get hit far less hard, because half of their movement would be back towards their origin.

The fatigue mechanic in general has plenty of promise and is an elegant solution to what most acknowledge as a problem in EVE, but crushing nullsec quality of life in the process isn't necessary - the method above addresses that.



Example of a CSM member actually doing something. Very impressed.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf

xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#7785 - 2014-10-08 16:56:09 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
(alternative math for fatigue and shock is all nice but mainly appears self serving so you can do what you want and screw everybody else OR you want to create a loophole that will be easier to fly through)

You are 100% correct. Those heavily against the change are really just after some loophole to exploit heavily to keep things the way they are. CCP needs to stand firm against these players and go forward with these changes making sure there is no such loopholes.

All the fear mongering and banging of pots and pans by these cowards needs to simply be dismissed.


You are the Glenn Beck of Eve Online
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#7786 - 2014-10-08 16:57:23 UTC
Dinger wrote:

A permanent reduction in the impact on blackops, it is their role after all and let's be fair serious territory grabs with blackops? really?


I'll beat the BLOPS drum on this note...

Would be happy with a system that prevented me from using regular cynos for awhile if I jump/bridge to covert ones if capital taxis are really the concern here.

Fatigue reductions would help, but any pilot that does logistics wouldn't be able to participate :( That may be a necessary sacrifice although not a desirable one. Logistics (the cargo ferrying kind) alts can be trained.

Would be happy with a new BLOPS role if Cyno V is reimbursed if it ends up being useless.

Every day I'm wafflin!

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#7787 - 2014-10-08 16:57:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Marlona Sky wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
(alternative math for fatigue and shock is all nice but mainly appears self serving so you can do what you want and screw everybody else OR you want to create a loophole that will be easier to fly through)

You are 100% correct. Those heavily against the change are really just after some loophole to exploit heavily to keep things the way they are. CCP needs to stand firm against these players and go forward with these changes making sure there is no such loopholes.

All the fear mongering and banging of pots and pans by these cowards needs to simply be dismissed.


Bookmarked for use 6 months from now.

This is the problem with such discussions. Some one will inevitably claim that the only reason someone doesn't like an idea is some selfish ulterior motive.

It can't be that people love the game as much as others do and can see the flaws in a line of thinking that has persisted for a long time during the games development. I'm all for a more fun game (even if the change that creates it kind of craps on my own and others short term situations like isk making), but what CCP is doing here isn't taking a number of relevant things into consideration (like evidence of past failures, the current state of the game ie there are wormholes now and such, and human nature).

I was playing when Dominion happened. This thread could be from 2009 because the EXACT same thing is happening: overly optimistic types praising a change because they don't have enough caution in their natures to understand that the most likely result is going to be horrible, and more cautious types being completely ignored and portrayed as some kind of selfish reactionary fringe.

Because of the above, history keeps repeating itself. How many times do we have to see the same things before we say 'enough, time for some new, evidence based thinking'?
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7788 - 2014-10-08 16:59:51 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Litia Cours wrote:

Sorry I forgot this game was designed for Goons. My point is why should it be easy as a newbie to travel to the darkest reaches of space? It should be difficult.

why should it be difficult

what does that add to the game

please discuss in terms of the game and not dumb analogies involving babies


How can it be difficult for new Goons to get to nullsec when you control half of it?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#7789 - 2014-10-08 17:00:29 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Example of a CSM member actually doing something. Very impressed.

eh cut em some slack

most of them didn't even hear about this change before we did :haw:
Gwailar
Doomheim
#7790 - 2014-10-08 17:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gwailar
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:

When applying for Goon membership, is there a question concerning your ability to use use proper punctuation, capitalization and grammar?

And if you answer, "Yes, I can type at more than a grade two level in English" you get denied?

Mr Epeen Cool

on the contrary, our posters have an extremely advanced understanding of punctuation, capitalization, and grammar

the type punctuation, capitalization, and grammar you use in your writing is a method of conveying unspoken meaning to the reader. what you call 'proper' is merely the type you use when you want to convey respect for both yourself and for the English language


Fixed.

In other news, I like the idea of keeping jump freighter range unchanged and attaching a much lower fatigue-per-range modifier, while giving them the Iteron V treatment instead.

Force jump freighters to carry components and not finished ships. Force the production to happen in the field. And allow regular gate freighters to carry finished ships.

This accomplishes the limits to force projection and boosts nullsec industry without making logi a time-sucking hell.

It also would lessen the overall economic impact of these changes. I've been following this thread since the beginning, and I've thought a lot about everything I've read, and I've decided that [IMO] nuke-nerfing force projection AND logi simultaneously is simply too big a change. It's too risky.

"Mmmmm. PoonWaffles."   --Mittens the Cat

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7791 - 2014-10-08 17:03:04 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Because of the above, history keeps repeating itself. How many times do we have to see the same things before we say 'enough, time for some new, evidence based thinking'?


I'm pretty sure "keep repeating the same mistakes over and over" is CCP's mission statement.

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7792 - 2014-10-08 17:03:56 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:

How can it be difficult for new Goons to get to nullsec when you control half of it?


Gevlon has resorted to paying people to gank only the most vulnerable of the CFC: absolutely new players and ratting renters in Branch Sad
Yuri Thorpe
Volatile Restability
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#7793 - 2014-10-08 17:07:58 UTC
Still waiting on an update for blops
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#7794 - 2014-10-08 17:09:08 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:

How can it be difficult for new Goons to get to nullsec when you control half of it?


Gevlon has resorted to paying people to gank only the most vulnerable of the CFC: absolutely new players and ratting renters in Branch Sad


Grrrr Gevlon

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7795 - 2014-10-08 17:11:07 UTC
Gwailar wrote:

Fixed.

no, unfortunately your understanding of grammar is insufficiently advanced

you are conveying your respect of the reader much more often than anything else
Josef Djugashvilis
#7796 - 2014-10-08 17:15:03 UTC
Alex Sn0w wrote:
8 months learned skills a character specifically for Thanatos, without this patch carriers is rarely used, now I think I can safely delete this character.
Do you really think that jumping from the gate to the gate most interesting exercise in Eve?

Google translation


Many of us, in fact the majority of players manage just fine going gate to gate.

Well, apart from getting ganked at gates...

Thank you.

This is not a signature.

Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#7797 - 2014-10-08 17:32:25 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinger wrote:

- Change all currently passive resource generation to the point where it is active and both disruptable and destructible, moon goo especially.

where did this fanfic originate that paints moongoo as being indestructible and unmolestable

have you tried shooting a moon mining tower, I recommend dreadnaught class space wessels for the task

siphons are also good at screwing with moon havers


siphons are garbage. And before letting dreads through gates, you are at the mercy of the cynojammers and supercap blob. Poast change however, I could literally fly a dread in by meself, siege up, and blap a tower into reinforced now.
Probably want some support with me, but it still stands that in november we WILL have the ability to interrupt moon mining.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#7798 - 2014-10-08 17:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dream Five
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
mynnna wrote:
I've been playing with this for a couple days, and here's the adjustment I propose:

Fatigue = (Fatigue Before Jump + Distance of Jump)^(Destination Distance from Origin * A + B)

Distance from origin is just the straight-line distance in light years. Origin is set when you make a jump with 0 fatigue and can be reset when you are back to 0 fatigue (it could also be available to reset after a period of time of several hours regardless of fatigue, which is also interesting). A and B are just constants to tweak for balance. A sets how far from your origin you can go before fatigue really starts ramping up quickly; that distance is 1/A light years. B is just a tuning knob, especially handy for tweaking the effect on short range travel. Individual ships could get bonuses to one or the other, as well. All the other mechanics about fatigue work identically. A = 0.05 and B = .3 generate interesting results, for sure.

The effect of this is that short range travel, such as within your own region, isn't punished as though it's exactly like long distance travel. It's important to note that that isn't the same as "not punished at all" but rather that it imposes interesting choice on that movement. The industry player might ask himself whether he wants to take a gate to the expensive factory next door (three minute round trip, for example) or the bridge to the factory in the next constellation, which is cheaper but has a six minute round trip. The pilot PvPing and defending his home from roamers might decide whether taking that third bridge in two hours is worth the ten minute wait, worth not being able to get back around in that time. As proposed by the blog, neither player can make more than a few jumps before effectively losing the ability for the entire play session. Heck, even the force seeking to cross a long distance in EVE can decide whether they want to get there faster or avoid obstacles but impair their mobility upon arrival, or take it slow but have more full mobility. And in an invasion, both the invaders and defenders would have the benefit of their cyno movement being local and so somewhat less restricted, allowing for a nice balance between the current paradigm where the target region plus three regions surrounding it are the battlefield, and the paradigm of this blog. where lack of mobility restricts the battlefield to just one or two systems.

It also nicely addresses some complaints of the thread. Blackops battleships don't get rendered completely ineffectual, because most of their movement takes place within a limited distance from a staging location. Jump Freighters would get hit far less hard, because half of their movement would be back towards their origin.

The fatigue mechanic in general has plenty of promise and is an elegant solution to what most acknowledge as a problem in EVE, but crushing nullsec quality of life in the process isn't necessary - the method above addresses that.



Example of a CSM member actually doing something. Very impressed.



Cool idea but not very intuitive to understand for someone not mathematically inclined. Seems like you'd need a way to predict what your fatigue is going to be / fatigue planner with this formula. Heck I'd need a spreadsheet to calculate it lol

I do like the idea of jumping back to your "base" not accumulating the fatigue or even reducing it but I think it could be done in more intuitive terms.

Maybe very directly so, ie, the system where you spent the most time within the past 24 or 48 hrs becomes your "base" and fatigue is calculated as a fixed function of distance to base.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7799 - 2014-10-08 17:40:02 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinger wrote:

- Change all currently passive resource generation to the point where it is active and both disruptable and destructible, moon goo especially.

where did this fanfic originate that paints moongoo as being indestructible and unmolestable

have you tried shooting a moon mining tower, I recommend dreadnaught class space wessels for the task

siphons are also good at screwing with moon havers


siphons are garbage. And before letting dreads through gates, you are at the mercy of the cynojammers and supercap blob. Poast change however, I could literally fly a dread in by meself, siege up, and blap a tower into reinforced now.
Probably want some support with me, but it still stands that in november we WILL have the ability to interrupt moon mining.

nobody cynojams mining towers dude

cynojammers are basically for csaa systems and staging systems only
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#7800 - 2014-10-08 17:40:56 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinger wrote:

- Change all currently passive resource generation to the point where it is active and both disruptable and destructible, moon goo especially.

where did this fanfic originate that paints moongoo as being indestructible and unmolestable

have you tried shooting a moon mining tower, I recommend dreadnaught class space wessels for the task

siphons are also good at screwing with moon havers


siphons are garbage. And before letting dreads through gates, you are at the mercy of the cynojammers and supercap blob. Poast change however, I could literally fly a dread in by meself, siege up, and blap a tower into reinforced now.
Probably want some support with me, but it still stands that in november we WILL have the ability to interrupt moon mining.

ah yes cynojammers, the scourge of all moons in lowsec, npc 0.0, and moons that net less than 600m isk per month (the cost of a cynojammer sov upgrade) in sov space