These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates!

First post First post First post
Author
Niskin
League of the Lost
#2081 - 2014-11-13 14:56:03 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
1) CCP already "thought up" the "strawman" My best guess is that the politics involved something like this: "PL, et all capital blobbing from across the universe has risen to levels beyond which we can permit. It is time to stick it to them." The easiest way to answer the question about whether a change is political is to look at who is being affected the most by it. Obviously, the answer here is: Groups that capital blob across more than 5 ly. I hope some clear images of specific groups come to mind; PL being the leading iconic image of this over the years.


That ignores the fact that several months before this change was announced, one of PL's FC's called for a stronger nerf to cap travel than what we actually got. His name is Manfred Sideous and he asked for caps to be able to use gates and, wait for it, jump drives to be removed. Now I'm sure he doesn't speak for every member of PL, but as an FC he's not some fresh grunt with a shiny new corp tag and a dream. Interestingly enough his goal was for the changes to make the mercenary profession more viable. If PL becomes the new MC that would be awesome.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2082 - 2014-11-14 11:46:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Niskin wrote:

I had to go back and find this quote because it was the beginning of me understanding why Andy doesn't understand. For a guy who is rightly suggesting we find the root cause and fix that, he doesn't seem to understand how to find a root cause.

Instant and Unlimited things aren't necessarily the problem. For example, I can instantly reprocess an unlimited amount of ore. Is that a problem that should be nerfed? Not at all, there are other mechanics which bottleneck mining and industry so that this step being quick unlimited in scale hurts nothing. The same goes for cap travel, so let me root cause it for you. To find a root cause you have to start with a root problem.

I agree that if there is a bottleneck, then the process is not instant or unlimited, but where is the bottleneck in the hotdrop and single target kill with overwhelming force? And why does a strategic hotdrop need to be usable even on the local scale for overwhelming ganks of single ships? Why not just do a roam?

Niskin wrote:

The Problem: Pilots are afraid to be out in space anywhere in the game due to fears of a hotdrop coming from literally anywhere on the map. An extension of this is that fights that could happen get avoided because: if they will hotdrop a solo cruiser they will certainly hot drop a decent fight.

The Caveat: Pilots should be afraid of being hot dropped by local entities, this should still be possible.


Are you afraid that the lone target will see massively superior forces in intel and run away? By all rights, they should be free to flee. And there should be strong benefits to convince them to choose to stay. As if we should have a right to prevent lone players or small groups from running away from overwhelmingly crushing odds. That is broken gameplay right there. Are you afraid that you can't get a fight? There is a root cause right there. The fact that small groups are afraid of being crushed is not a problem. That is quite natural.

My Analysis on hot drops is:

  • Bridges should be limited to the mass limits of a small Class 1 wormhole and to destinations at sov structures to make them more strategic in nature. No more infinite bridging hot drops.
  • No more instant hot drops. There should be time for travel so that jumping is more strategic in nature. For bridging, the sov structures aren't going anywhere.


My Analysis on less pilot fear of massively overwhelming hotdrops and more fights:

  • After jumping travel time is addressed, pilots will be willing to stick around and fight knowing that they have some time before any overwhelming forces appear out of no where and wipe them.
  • All ship types need a reason to engage in and stay in space even if they are seeing that the odds are growing against them. This means that existing and new content, especially regarding sov and sov advantages, needs to be added and strengthened for stronger benefit to the individual players on the field (like the bounty system) as opposed to benefits for the alliance (like the moon system). Players will stay if the cost of losing their ship and clone, and the time and effort of building and importing new ones are all adequately offset for the time of staying in space when it seems a strong likelihood that they could lose. This is where CCP needs to get creative. If the rewards only justify T1 frigates staying in space to complete an objective, then capital players will get bored and capitals will get dusty. There must be enough content for EVERYONE, regardless of the ship type.


I must add two other points and recommendations:

  • There should not be any discrimination between the tools used to leave a grid, especially when each tool utilizes the same or similar mochanics like wormholes or warp engines. If points stop a ship from warping and jumping, I think that they must also stop stargate travel, jump bridge travel, and wormhole travel.
  • Engagement of capitals needs to be on a strategic (engagement of sov and fleets, etc.) level and less on a logistical (movement) level because capitals have much stronger engines, jump drives and general travel capabilities. The large engines of capitals absolutely deserve a natural +2 to warp core stability and a natural micro jump drive built in to the ship.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2083 - 2014-11-14 13:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Andy Landen wrote:
I agree that if there is a bottleneck, then the process is not instant or unlimited, but where is the bottleneck in the hotdrop and single target kill with overwhelming force? And why does a strategic hotdrop need to be usable even on the local scale for overwhelming ganks of single ships? Why not just do a roam?

If someone's within hotdroppable range of a local gang, they should know they're in that range and take the appropriate precautions. Likewise should the locals be aware of the exact same thing in return if they know someone's moved into the neighbourhood with caps.

Andy Landen wrote:
My Analysis on hot drops is:

  • Bridges should be limited to the mass limits of a small Class 1 wormhole and to destinations at sov structures to make them more strategic in nature. No more infinite bridging hot drops.
  • No more instant hot drops. There should be time for travel so that jumping is more strategic in nature. For bridging, the sov structures aren't going anywhere.

"Please, mister enemy FC/pilot, don't move, I'll be there in an hour with capitals to gank you. It's a date, k?"

There's nothing wrong with instant jumps, why are you micromanaging jumps? It was added by CCP as an instantaneous feature, you can't just come in here and micromanage that ****.

Andy Landen wrote:
My Analysis on less pilot fear of massively overwhelming hotdrops and more fights:

  • After jumping travel time is addressed, pilots will be willing to stick around and fight knowing that they have some time before any overwhelming forces appear out of no where and wipe them.
  • All ship types need a reason to engage in and stay in space even if they are seeing that the odds are growing against them. This means that existing and new content, especially regarding sov and sov advantages, needs to be added and strengthened for stronger benefit to the individual players on the field (like the bounty system) as opposed to benefits for the alliance (like the moon system). Players will stay if the cost of losing their ship and clone, and the time and effort of building and importing new ones are all adequately offset for the time of staying in space when it seems a strong likelihood that they could lose. This is where CCP needs to get creative. If the rewards only justify T1 frigates staying in space to complete an objective, then capital players will get bored and capitals will get dusty. There must be enough content for EVERYONE, regardless of the ship type.

So let's pretend 2 fleets are fighting, and the locals decide to send in the caps, only to arrive an hour later. What happened to the fight? Well, that ended 55 minutes earlier, because one FC saw that his fleet was countered by the other FC's fleet, so he bailed. This despite the fact he knew he'd get "reinforcements" in an hour.

The caps turn around and spend the next hour travelling back to their home base, if they aren't told after 5 minutes to drop out of hyperspace and just return to port because they're too slow and useless, why don't they just reprocess the ships now and be done with it, who cares about the useless caps with their slowass hyperdrive?
Niskin
League of the Lost
#2084 - 2014-11-14 15:24:20 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I agree that if there is a bottleneck, then the process is not instant or unlimited, but where is the bottleneck in the hotdrop and single target kill with overwhelming force? And why does a strategic hotdrop need to be usable even on the local scale for overwhelming ganks of single ships? Why not just do a roam?


The hot drop to get the single target kill IS the bottleneck. If you choose to do that then you are choosing to limit what you do next due to jump timer and fatigue. This includes jumping back out of the system after the kill.

Why should a strategic hotdrop be usable on a local scale? Because that is the point of jump drives, instant engagement within jump range. The problem was never the jump or the instant nature of the jump, but the effective range one could get with successive instant jumps. It limits the number of entities that could be hot dropping you, simplifying risk management.

This is why caps aren't dead or useless, they still have their full instant engagement functionality intact. It's just that it's only useful this side of a much closer line than it used to be.

Andy Landen wrote:
Are you afraid that the lone target will see massively superior forces in intel and run away? By all rights, they should be free to flee. And there should be strong benefits to convince them to choose to stay. As if we should have a right to prevent lone players or small groups from running away from overwhelmingly crushing odds. That is broken gameplay right there. Are you afraid that you can't get a fight? There is a root cause right there. The fact that small groups are afraid of being crushed is not a problem. That is quite natural.


There should be ways to flee and ways to prevent them from fleeing. The precautions the target takes will determine whether or not they can flee. If you aren't watching intel channels or local you are going to get caught. If something that can fit a cyno lands on grid and tackles you, then you are going to die, and you shouldn't be able to flee at that point unless you outrange the tackler or use ECM drones or something. Lets not forget that caps don't just hotdrop, somebody has to get to the target and hold them down while the caps jump.

Andy Landen wrote:
My Analysis on hot drops is:


analysis
[uh-nal-uh-sis]
Examples Word Origin
noun, plural analyses [uh-nal-uh-seez]
1. the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements (opposed to synthesis ).
2. this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations:
the grammatical analysis of a sentence.
3. a presentation, usually in writing, of the results of this process:
The paper published an analysis of the political situation.
4. a philosophical method of exhibiting complex concepts or propositions as compounds or functions of more basic ones.

Analysis doesn't mean "here are my suggestions for a problem I don't understand." Analysis is HOW you understand the problem. It starts with stating the problem and then breaking it down into it's elements and understanding how they relate and interact with each other.

Continued in next post...

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Niskin
League of the Lost
#2085 - 2014-11-14 15:56:46 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

  • Bridges should be limited to the mass limits of a small Class 1 wormhole and to destinations at sov structures to make them more strategic in nature. No more infinite bridging hot drops.

  • This is already solved by fatigue and jump timers, and it's solved better because it slows all movement and still allows for logistics to move faster than combat ships.

  • No more instant hot drops. There should be time for travel so that jumping is more strategic in nature. For bridging, the sov structures aren't going anywhere.


Once again, you falsely accuse the word "instant" of being the problem without understanding what the problem is. Travel time removes options and choices, it doesn't add them. You can commit to a long duration jump or not. Once you jump you can wait to get there, or not. If you choose not to wait you end up somewhere you never wanted to be. With the current mechanics you can jump and then decide how to proceed? Should I wait and keep jumping or bail for a sub cap or jump now and eat the fatigue because I'm needed at the destination too badly?

My Analysis on less pilot fear of massively overwhelming hotdrops and more fights:

  • After jumping travel time is addressed, pilots will be willing to stick around and fight knowing that they have some time before any overwhelming forces appear out of no where and wipe them.

  • And we all know that's what pilots waiting for a fight want, more waiting. I hope we get to keep waiting, in fact if this fight never actually starts that would be awesome, thanks!

  • All ship types need a reason to engage in and stay in space even if they are seeing that the odds are growing against them. This means that existing and new content, especially regarding sov and sov advantages, needs to be added and strengthened for stronger benefit to the individual players on the field (like the bounty system) as opposed to benefits for the alliance (like the moon system). Players will stay if the cost of losing their ship and clone, and the time and effort of building and importing new ones are all adequately offset for the time of staying in space when it seems a strong likelihood that they could lose. This is where CCP needs to get creative. If the rewards only justify T1 frigates staying in space to complete an objective, then capital players will get bored and capitals will get dusty. There must be enough content for EVERYONE, regardless of the ship type.


Say what now? So individual pilots should somehow be given incentives to remain in the battle they are in, when they are losing, for some reason other than wanting to win the fight? I mean they are part of a Corp and/or Alliance right? They want their team to win right? I'm sure they will tell the FC they are bringing their Rifter instead of their Nidhogger because there isn't enough incentive for them to do so. And I'm sure after that they will still be a member in good standing in that corp...

I must add two other points and recommendations:

  • There should not be any discrimination between the tools used to leave a grid, especially when each tool utilizes the same or similar mochanics like wormholes or warp engines. If points stop a ship from warping and jumping, I think that they must also stop stargate travel, jump bridge travel, and wormhole travel.

  • You keep saying the things you think and not the reason you think these things are necessary. Arbitrarily applying mechanics across the board isn't spreading fairness, it's ignoring balance. If there is a reason this effect should be the same across all ships then it should be easy to explain. WH's have polarization, which differs them from stargates. Caps have outsize defenses compared to subcap travelers, so the HIC focused point was changed to affect cap jumping. A specific change for a specific problem, that is how these things should work.

  • Engagement of capitals needs to be on a strategic (engagement of sov and fleets, etc.) level and less on a logistical (movement) level because capitals have much stronger engines, jump drives and general travel capabilities. The large engines of capitals absolutely deserve a natural +2 to warp core stability and a natural micro jump drive built in to the ship.


Are you f*cking insane? Caps with +2 WC stability and MJD's built in is more strategic and less logistical? Yeah, nobody would use those advantages in a logistical way more than they would in a strategic way. LOL Hey, while we're at it lets give the Rorqual the old Titan AE DD that hits all ships! I mean, all ships should have a chance to flee, even if they have to nuke the entire field for 65k hp's to do it. Well sh*t, if we give it to the Rorqual then we have to give it to everybody else. Excuse me while I take out my fleet of DD'ing Crows, be sure to watch your intel channels!


My comments in bold.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2086 - 2014-11-14 16:52:38 UTC
Niskin wrote:
A specific change for a specific problem, that is how these things should work.

STOP MICROMANAGING AND RUINING THE SANDBOX WITH TWEAKS TO ALREADY EXISTING RULES!!!!!!!!!1111eleventyoneoneone
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2087 - 2014-11-14 23:03:56 UTC
Niskin wrote:
[quote=Andy Landen][list]

My comments in bold.

Shame most of your bold comments are badly thought out and contain no good arguments.

You've mixed Capital abilities with Super abilities.
Carriers and Dreads have no defense against bubbles or even a rifter with a long point, you don't need a dictor with focus script. +2 warp core strength would at least allow them a chance against a gate camp. Although I believe the +2 WC should be a single lowslot module that gives bubble immunity, when fit it offlines offensive capabilities, combine that with a "capital micro jump drive" and gate travel for solo or small groups of capitals takes on a whole new twist.

And both of you have it wrong when it comes to "strategic" and "logistical" use of capitals. A carriers greatest ability is its ship maintenance bay. Although in the past they rarely got used for this attribute on the battlefield, changes to travel/movement should see this change.
A subcap fleet with carrier support for logistics and reshipping could be a new way to fight your enemies when they have "home field" advantage.. Problem is, if it becomes too popular CCP will nerf it.

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.

Niskin
League of the Lost
#2088 - 2014-11-14 23:27:36 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
A subcap fleet with carrier support for logistics and reshipping could be a new way to fight your enemies when they have "home field" advantage.. Problem is, if it becomes too popular CCP will nerf it.


Unless that's exactly what they wanted to happen with these changes...

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2089 - 2014-11-15 00:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Niskin is right. My analysis was more of a list of solutions and the problems that they solve with explanations on why they are problems. I probably should have called it root problem solving and justification.
Niskin wrote:

This is already solved by fatigue and jump timers, and it's solved better because it slows all movement and still allows for logistics to move faster than combat ships.

Fatigue creates a bottleneck after the first engagement of the hour. And that assumes that the full 5 ly were jumped. Even less time if the jump is down to 1 ly. It is a limited bottleneck.

Niskin wrote:

Once again, you falsely accuse the word "instant" of being the problem without understanding what the problem is. Travel time removes options and choices, it doesn't add them. You can commit to a long duration jump or not. Once you jump you can wait to get there, or not. If you choose not to wait you end up somewhere you never wanted to be. With the current mechanics you can jump and then decide how to proceed? Should I wait and keep jumping or bail for a sub cap or jump now and eat the fatigue because I'm needed at the destination too badly?

Would you say then that warp should be instant as well? If not, then why not? Given a jump to a hostile force or warp to the same hostile force, why should one be instant and the other take time? Are we not limiting the options of those who travel by warp? Is that bad? An interceptor appears in local and after a very brief align time, an instant warp brings the interceptor is right on top of its target? Can you argue that this is a good thing and if not, then why not? I'll let you argue my case on travel time with this example.

Niskin wrote:

And we all know that's what pilots waiting for a fight want, more waiting. I hope we get to keep waiting, in fact if this fight never actually starts that would be awesome, thanks!

Are not structure shoots merely a bunch of waiting with an occasional target change? The military is 99% wait and 1% combat because most combat missions are about securing, transporting, guarding, shelling, etc. Wait is good if you are doing something for a mission or goal. Faction Warfare is mostly just waiting in sites. Gate camping is mostly waiting at gates. Waiting is a primary aspect of combat and pvp. Those who enjoy pvp understand that it can be boring.

Niskin wrote:

Say what now? So individual pilots should somehow be given incentives to remain in the battle they are in, when they are losing, for some reason other than wanting to win the fight? I mean they are part of a Corp and/or Alliance right? They want their team to win right? I'm sure they will tell the FC they are bringing their Rifter instead of their Nidhogger because there isn't enough incentive for them to do so. And I'm sure after that they will still be a member in good standing in that corp...

PVE gets plenty of incentives to kill pirates, etc. There is no reason that pvp should not also get individual rewards. Faction warfare gives rewards to individuals all the time. Sure there are other reasons for doing stuff, but when ISK is put on the line, it only makes sense that there is a reward for doing it. Hans Solo charged premium rates for transporting stuff for people and he was willing to fight solo to do it.

Niskin wrote:

You keep saying the things you think and not the reason you think these things are necessary. Arbitrarily applying mechanics across the board isn't spreading fairness, it's ignoring balance. If there is a reason this effect should be the same across all ships then it should be easy to explain. WH's have polarization, which differs them from stargates. Caps have outsize defenses compared to subcap travelers, so the HIC focused point was changed to affect cap jumping. A specific change for a specific problem, that is how these things should work.

CCP has explained that stargates, jump drives, portal generators and jump bridges all create man-made whs, so no, there is no difference between them. No, the HIC was not invented because the cap was bigger than the BS which was bigger than the BC, etc etc. The focused script was invented to balance the problem created by making supercaps immune to ewar and normal points.

On the topic of micromanaging "changes" to solve problems created by other micromanaging changes/additions, I hope that you see there is no end to this cycle. A micromanaging changes will always create many more problems than it solves (if any). Also remember that what some call a problem, others call an advantage. So the question is not whether one group calls something a "problem", but instead it is whether a "change/new feature" in most cases favors some groups at the expense of other groups.

As an example: Fatigue favors groups with high cap density (PL) at the expense of groups with low cap density (NC.) High cap density means that there are a lot of caps in a small region of space, while low cap density means that the caps are spread out across the regions so much that there are fewer caps in each region. PL prefers to travel in a tight group (high cap density) and they fear the masses (Goons, NC., et all) gaining cap abilities across the regions and converging on top of them with increasingly superior numbers per engagement. My analysis from this example and CCP's firm commitment to Fatigue as the only solution is that CCP is still in PL's back pocket.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2090 - 2014-11-15 01:35:25 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Fatigue creates a bottleneck after the first engagement of the hour. And that assumes that the full 5 ly were jumped. Even less time if the jump is down to 1 ly. It is a limited bottleneck.

By design. It's a bottleneck designed to stop travelling from one end of the universe to the other, not to stop caps from being used for local defense.

Andy Landen wrote:
Would you say then that warp should be instant as well? If not, then why not? Given a jump to a hostile force or warp to the same hostile force, why should one be instant and the other take time? Are we not limiting the options of those who travel by warp? Is that bad? An interceptor appears in local and after a very brief align time, an instant warp brings the interceptor is right on top of its target? Can you argue that this is a good thing and if not, then why not? I'll let you argue my case on travel time with this example.

Comparing jumping to warping is wrong, if you should compare it to something, compare it to taking JBs and gates. Should gate travel take hours as well?

Andy Landen wrote:
Are not structure shoots merely a bunch of waiting with an occasional target change? The military is 99% wait and 1% combat because most combat missions are about securing, transporting, guarding, shelling, etc. Wait is good if you are doing something for a mission or goal. Faction Warfare is mostly just waiting in sites. Gate camping is mostly waiting at gates. Waiting is a primary aspect of combat and pvp. Those who enjoy pvp understand that it can be boring.

There's waiting while vulnerable (i.e. somewhere you can get shot at), and then there's waiting while invulnerable (and looking at someone's intestines while nothing happens for hours on end).

Andy Landen wrote:
PVE gets plenty of incentives to kill pirates, etc. There is no reason that pvp should not also get individual rewards. Faction warfare gives rewards to individuals all the time. Sure there are other reasons for doing stuff, but when ISK is put on the line, it only makes sense that there is a reward for doing it. Hans Solo charged premium rates for transporting stuff for people and he was willing to fight solo to do it.

I hear there's this thing called "bounties".

Oh wait, those were recently reworked, so they're also infected with filthy micromanagement. Whoops.

Andy Landen wrote:
On the topic of micromanaging "changes" to solve problems created by other micromanaging changes/additions, I hope that you see there is no end to this cycle. A micromanaging changes will always create many more problems than it solves (if any). Also remember that what some call a problem, others call an advantage. So the question is not whether one group calls something a "problem", but instead it is whether a "change/new feature" in most cases favors some groups at the expense of other groups.

As an example: Fatigue favors groups with high cap density (PL) at the expense of groups with low cap density (NC.) High cap density means that there are a lot of caps in a small region of space, while low cap density means that the caps are spread out across the regions so much that there are fewer caps in each region. PL prefers to travel in a tight group (high cap density) and they fear the masses (Goons, NC., et all) gaining cap abilities across the regions and converging on top of them with increasingly superior numbers per engagement. My analysis from this example and CCP's firm commitment to Fatigue as the only solution is that CCP is still in PL's back pocket.

Of course there's no end to the balancing act CCP has to do, the environment the rules are being played in are constantly changing (population, skills, wealth, other functionality being added/tweaked, etc). They can never, ever stop doing that, because there's always something which end up being either too weak or too powerful, and needs to be balanced against everything else in the game, or you'll end up with a game where a single shiptype is used to counter another shiptype to counter a third shiptype, and that's it.

Also holy ****, did you just do a 180 on who this change favored? Last I checked you were complaining about how this was CCP's entry into in-game politics to punish PL, and now you're saying it's obvious how CCP are in PL's back pocket?

At least you're consistent... Roll
Niskin
League of the Lost
#2091 - 2014-11-15 04:24:59 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:

Niskin wrote:

You keep saying the things you think and not the reason you think these things are necessary. Arbitrarily applying mechanics across the board isn't spreading fairness, it's ignoring balance. If there is a reason this effect should be the same across all ships then it should be easy to explain. WH's have polarization, which differs them from stargates. Caps have outsize defenses compared to subcap travelers, so the HIC focused point was changed to affect cap jumping. A specific change for a specific problem, that is how these things should work.

CCP has explained that stargates, jump drives, portal generators and jump bridges all create man-made whs, so no, there is no difference between them. No, the HIC was not invented because the cap was bigger than the BS which was bigger than the BC, etc etc. The focused script was invented to balance the problem created by making supercaps immune to ewar and normal points.


That's not what I said. In Phoebe the HIC focused script was changed to prevent capital gate jumps, since they can now use gates. It's an example of a specific change to control for a problem introduced by another mechanic that was changed. Capitals being able to jump gates created imbalanced situations, so this was done to control for those. If we allowed all warp disruptors to stop any type of jump, as you stated, that would create more imbalances. Balance is a tricky thing to achieve, the more sandboxy the game the more precise you have to be to get the desired effect and not break something else in the process.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Valkyrie Mystics
Malevolence.
#2092 - 2014-11-15 10:12:39 UTC
Fatique Timer destroyed me eve game Play.


- I'm not a Hotdroper
- I'm not a BIG Cap Mover

but i want Play and move my ships in space. I Pay for Play AttentionAttention not for stuck in System for more then 10 Day.

Now i jump with me SUBCAM thou 4JB's and can't juse me CAP in the next 3.5 Day's. Now i must plan me eve Week ? http://fatigue.501gu.de/

Today no pvp sorry, i'm afk in Anomaly, oh sorry this Week too .. .. mm why pvp ? Why i'm pay for JB, SOV, .... Shocked !

Now 0.0 are stick, no move no Dynamics, 0.0 are dead, why should i live ther Question every Allienc there System and over, Op done ? All Power to Player with more then 10 Alt's ? (cap move)


I'ts ok to say, cap can only jump XXRange and XXTime, but don't do it with Subcap's, or Limit it on 24h. This ist not my EVE now.Oops

2009 - 2014 RIP What?AttentionQuestion
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2093 - 2014-11-15 12:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Niskin wrote:

That's not what I said. In Phoebe the HIC focused script was changed to prevent capital gate jumps, since they can now use gates. It's an example of a specific change to control for a problem introduced by another mechanic that was changed. Capitals being able to jump gates created imbalanced situations, so this was done to control for those. If we allowed all warp disruptors to stop any type of jump, as you stated, that would create more imbalances. Balance is a tricky thing to achieve, the more sandboxy the game the more precise you have to be to get the desired effect and not break something else in the process.


WTH! HIC focused script prevents capitals from gate jumping, and capitals only at that?!!!! OMG! There is no difference what ship jumps through stargates. If the HIC script applies to caps, THEN IT SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO SUBCAPS!!!

And yes, I do think that the only difference between normal warp disruptors/scrams and the infinite point should be the number applied to the warp core. And yes, I do take issue with infinite here too. The script should be a number like minus 5. And supers should not be "immune" to any EW. If anything, their systems should be strong enough to make them resistant to some EW/warp disruption. Maybe +4 to warp core strength.

Balance is only tricky when you are trying to make players play the way you want them to play without them adapting and using your discriminations against you, instead of letting the sandbox decide how they want to play. This is a huge problem in American tax law, which tries to control the behavior of the population, but only generates tax loopholes which are frequently exploited. My message to anyone creating a sandbox is to STOP trying "to get the desired effect" because it only makes thing more complicated (think tax law and IRS) and people end up getting around it to do what they wanted in the first place (think tax loopholes). If there are reasons to fight, then people will fight. If you give them exploits to advantage one side or playstyle (desired ways), then both sides will use the exploits in undesired ways. If you give mechanics which are not intrinsically favoring one side or playstyle, then both sides will use those mechanics to their advantage in balanced ways. Fatigue favors the aggressor hotdropping locals.

A note to TGR: Previously, I only said that PL was considered a very well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force and that the jump nerf would hurt their cap projection. I never said that PL did not stand to benefit by limiting the force projection of others (more politics: aiming nerfs at specific groups for one's own advantage). Also, the politics of hurting one group at the expense of the other is only conspiracy theory if no one knows about the politics, but this all seems pretty obvious to me. If it was tough to trace who was in whose pocket, then there might be conspiracy theories.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2094 - 2014-11-15 13:40:27 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
A note to TGR: Previously, I only said that PL was considered a very well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force and that the jump nerf would hurt their cap projection. I never said that PL did not stand to benefit by limiting the force projection of others (more politics: aiming nerfs at specific groups for one's own advantage). Also, the politics of hurting one group at the expense of the other is only conspiracy theory if no one knows about the politics, but this all seems pretty obvious to me. If it was tough to trace who was in whose pocket, then there might be conspiracy theories.

A "well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force" which, along with the other "well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force" (NCdot etc) all got their **** pushed in by the "subcap-heavy horde of mouthbreathing basement dwellers". And, incidentally, where the main deciding factor was all about titans, subcaps played absolutely no role in it apart from as a generator of lag.

You've gone from "this change is only intended to feed subcaps cap kills" to "eve online is going to become blops online (even though an interceptor'll get from one side of the universe to the other 4-5 hours quicker)", to "roaming fleets'll be so effective they'll catch caps travelling with a scout even if it's in the next system" to "CCP is ******* with the sandbox by making balancing changes which'll make the game a better game", to "it's all a giant conspiracy to help the goonies defeat PL by nerfing PL's main doctrine", and now finally "well actually this change favours PL so CCP aren't in the goonies' pockets after all, but in PL's pockets".
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2095 - 2014-11-15 18:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lord TGR wrote:

A "well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force" which, along with the other "well-known large capital fleet hotdrop force" (NCdot etc) all got their **** pushed in by the "subcap-heavy horde of mouthbreathing basement dwellers". And, incidentally, where the main deciding factor was all about titans, subcaps played absolutely no role in it apart from as a generator of lag.

You've gone from "this change is only intended to feed subcaps cap kills" to "eve online is going to become blops online (even though an interceptor'll get from one side of the universe to the other 4-5 hours quicker)", to "roaming fleets'll be so effective they'll catch caps travelling with a scout even if it's in the next system" to "CCP is ******* with the sandbox by making balancing changes which'll make the game a better game", to "it's all a giant conspiracy to help the goonies defeat PL by nerfing PL's main doctrine", and now finally "well actually this change favours PL so CCP aren't in the goonies' pockets after all, but in PL's pockets".

I think that the first two quotes were the only accurate ones. The other quotes seemed to be good summations until you got to the conspiracy and goons/PL part, which was complete BS. What I said was that any effort to get caps to use gates withOUT (correction) any buffs to their travel bonuses/stats will simply make catching and killing caps at gates remarkably easy. And that PL had interests in capital force projection across all of Eve until their opponents developed substantial capital assets across large amounts of space through mega alliances. CCP had no issue with capital force projection across Eve until the mass brought substantial threat from across Eve onto capital dense (lots of caps in a small/local area) alliances like PL. Now I certainly do not support instant capital force projection across ANY DISTANCE, but I am certainly NOT of the mind that the solution needs to preserve PL's (or anyone's) instant and local capital force projection.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2096 - 2014-11-15 19:13:00 UTC
So when you were proclaiming that the cap changes would be the death of EVE because caps would be absolutely useless/worthless, that was your way of saying "holy **** this'll be super beneficial for PL, CCP sure must be in PL's pockets"?
Saali Demonis
Teutate raiders
The Initiative.
#2097 - 2014-11-15 19:30:20 UTC
This update was meant to nerf CAPITALS hotdrop, so why does this apply the same maner to conventionnal ships which jump through jump bridges ? Even SHUTTLES are affected......

This update was meant to nerf CAPITALS hotdrop, so why does it apply to jump bridge, which were designed to travel through a region an alliance or a corp settle ?

I'm not a winner, but this update is really a pain for CONVENTIONNAL SHIPS using jump bridges.

CCP apply jump fatigue to CAPITAL SHIPS using JUMP DRIVE ONLY.

Otherwise it's nonsense.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2098 - 2014-11-15 19:34:21 UTC
Saali Demonis wrote:
This update was meant to nerf CAPITALS hotdrop, so why does this apply the same maner to conventionnal ships which jump through jump bridges ? Even SHUTTLES are affected......

This update was meant to nerf CAPITALS hotdrop, so why does it apply to jump bridge, which were designed to travel through a region an alliance or a corp settle ?

I'm not a winner, but this update is really a pain for CONVENTIONNAL SHIPS using jump bridges.

CCP apply jump fatigue to CAPITAL SHIPS using JUMP DRIVE ONLY.

Otherwise it's nonsense.

It was not a capitals only nerf. It was a power projection nerf.

And players are what project power, not ships. That's why phoebe had death clone nerds as well.
Niskin
League of the Lost
#2099 - 2014-11-15 21:49:15 UTC
Rowells wrote:
death clone nerds


That would make a great corp name...

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow

Shaun Hansen
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#2100 - 2014-11-16 13:14:25 UTC
Hi, Greyscale, guys and gals.

Got this idea earlier today: Calculate fatigue based on standings.

Jumping in neutral space, eg, NPC space or through space where the owners have set us to either no standings or 0, will produce default ( current ) fatigue.

The higher standings, the lower the fatugue. Jumping through space, where the owners have set us to +10, no or only very little fatigue will be produced. Travelling through space, where the owners have set us to -10 will produce alot more fatigue. Jumping through space owned by us, will produce same fatigue as in the +10 example.

Best regards,

Shaun