These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#261 - 2014-10-09 20:34:05 UTC
The thing i was starting to draw immediately was a simple 'mobile bridging system' based on the black ops. If i can draw that i wonder if anyone else sees it as well. Its like with that 50% bonus for the Black ops bridging others at least half of the original announced changes is gone already again.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Darryl Brown
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2014-10-09 20:34:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Black Ops fatigue is a value we're happy to tune, within a reasonable range. Make a case for a number and we'll listen :)


Oooh, ooh, pick me!

Combat black ops drops (e.g. Falcon tackles Rattlesnake in a Sanctum, lights covert cyno, two Panthers and a Sin jump in and kill Rattlesnake) are great fun. They add value to Eve because ratting with neuts or reds in local should be risky. They're not perfect; the target might be pre-aligned to a safe, loaded with warp core stabilizers, handy with an AB and MJD, or bait for a counter-drop. Blops drops depend upon stealth, patience, and mobility. The primary weapon is surprise - and jumping to the hunter cyno is essential for the surprise to work.

Here's how things work currently:
The hunter roams through a region, dodging gate camps and looking wistfully at shiny ships in POSes. At last! He spots a target in an anomaly. Things happen quickly - decloak, tackle, cyno, blops bses jump in, target dies, cyno down, scoop the loot, leave the scene. The black ops battleships wait for jump cap and then return to the staging system via jump. The hunter moves on in search of the next target.

Here's how things would work with a 5ly jump with these revised changes:
Hunter cyno goes up, Blops ships jump in, kill the target, and wait for 1+2.5 minutes before the jump cool-down expires. If they jump 5ly to the exit cyno after 3.5 minutes with 3.15 fatigue they get 3.15 x 3.5 = 11.025 fatigue and are done for the day. If they choose to wait in the system for at least 25 minutes, their fatigue drops below 1 and the next jump isn't quite so painful.

Assuming they're adaptive folks - they have abandoned the practice of always returning to the staging system and instead wait to jump directly to the next target. Either way - there is no point in continuing to hunt for 20+ minutes until the combat blops pilots' fatigue is reduced. This is not fun. Although I suppose the hunter could go around and do "catch and release" fishing for a bit. How about taking gates? Combat blops ships are certainly better than most ships at navigating bubble camps (better speed while cloaked, can fit MJDs), but they're also pricey and fragile. Plus, they warp at 2.2au/s, so warping from in-gate to target is not feasible.

I think a -50% fatigue factor is better than the original proposal but still extremely constraining. The added range (8 vs. 7.5ish) is nice, but this iteration would still mean 1-2 potential kills per session. Currently the limiting factors are all based on player behavior: Can you catch someone? Did they use their intel network and successfully avoid you?

Counter-point to what I just said:
If the blops jump drive (or covert bridge) receives a gentler nerf than this current iteration (as I think it should), it could potentially serve as a work-around for the consequences of other changes to movement in Phoebe. This is already the case for Jump Freighters-as-taxis (and industrials?), but Blops ships are considerably cheaper and more accessible (and covert bridges would be even more accessible).

In conclusion, I would be really sad if Phoebe removed the viability of blops drops from EVE. I am in favor of the vision behind Phoebe, but I really don't want blops ships to be collateral damage and I hope that you don't, too.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#263 - 2014-10-09 20:35:40 UTC
Edisonn Trent wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Fail CCP... You just insure us that nothing will change in EVE... sad that EVE is not Your's anymore but it belongs to crying lazy babies of null...

It could be the biggest and best change in game in last few years, but it end as biggest fail...



Have to agree, at least partly. Now any alliance with large numbers can just train lots of pilots to fly jfs and guarantee that they can move their subcaps with double the range of any cap fleet and with a much lower cooloff time. The previous changes dealt with both big problems in null- capital proliferation and the nigh invulnerability in numbers. Now the second part is gone, cause even though say goons won't be able to move their caps around the map, they can still run their hordes from one side of the map to another whenever they feel like it.

Actually, increasing the range of a JF doesn't change the amount of TIME it takes to move at all. Nor does it the cost. Both fatigue and fuel consumption are measured in light years. I might be able to jump twice as far in one jump in a Jump Freighter, but I have to wait twice as long for jump cooldown, twice as long for jump fatigue to wear off, and pay twice the isotope cost. All increasing the range does is make more of nullsec accessible from lowsec and make all routes take fewer cyno alts.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2014-10-09 20:35:40 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.


or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength



Doesnt fix the problem of them jumping a gate and instantly leaving - that was the issue at hand. With being unable to bubble - you cant stop that. Unless there's something artificial stopping the gate jump.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2014-10-09 20:36:16 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:

So I guess I am just a little confused on the sudden and complete 180 u turn.


This isn't a U-Turn. The changes are intended to nerf the ability of nullsec groups to project their firepower across the universe in a matter of minutes. These changes still fully nerf capital combat ships (?rorqual?) and prevent groups from tagging along every fight that happens in the galaxy.

Even with these small changes, more regional fights will kick up, because there will be less fear of getting hotdropped from across the galaxy.
MiliasColds
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2014-10-09 20:37:24 UTC
I admit ccp greyscale that i commented on the drone region gulf and JF range reduction, and i am happy that the limit is now 10, for the interim at least, I would really like to see the a greater ability of mining and building a lot more on site, T2 included, because i liked where the 5 ly range could go, if we could support more regional markets in null / more regional construction. because as it is the industrialists out there even if you build things don't have a good customer base, as usually the only people around are alliance bros, and gouging them would be a **** move (as it stands). which leads into the sell everything in jita. being desirable imho
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#267 - 2014-10-09 20:38:10 UTC
Is there any idea when you'll allow Carriers into Highsec?

Can it be done by Phoebe?

...

Cpt Patrick Archer
Crystalline.
#268 - 2014-10-09 20:38:39 UTC
YES!
First of all, thanks for taking the time to actually read all the posts (sorry i'm giving you moreSmile).
Now this is pretty much takes away everything I didn't like about the changes, being completely cut off from empire on a logistical level.

Thanks for listening, really, thanks!

We've been talking internally since the previous announcement, should we stay or should we go? This solves that..

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#269 - 2014-10-09 20:39:07 UTC
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.


or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength



Doesnt fix the problem of them jumping a gate and instantly leaving - that was the issue at hand. With being unable to bubble - you cant stop that. Unless there's something artificial stopping the gate jump.


sounds like they should actually properly de-gay jump drives and make jumping take 60s and be cancellable with tackle or something.
NinjaTurtle
THIGH GUYS
#270 - 2014-10-09 20:39:57 UTC
Better. Thank you
Hellusius
Siesta Inc.
#271 - 2014-10-09 20:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Hellusius
Ola CCP-ers,
I do think with this update it is a lesser of a strain on the smaller corps / players like myself living in null. I do to extend agree with some people that perhaps it is too easy to do logistics in null. but 5LY with timers is more of a strain than adding risks for null logistic. I agree it is probably somewhat hard to make a real good scenario for it, but like mentioned, take the time and propose the CSM and crowd with fuel to provide you guys with feedback, itteration generally serves the greater good.

Personally the biggest issue with this change for me has little in common with that I see in allot posts about logistics, empty null, the blops and posts regarding sov. For me it is play and time. Timers, Cooldowns, Waiting ... dont we already have enough of that? those are things you'd want to reduce (which you have been doing in certain corners, like session timers) specially if you want engaging and immersive gameplay. Balancing is good (even nerfing), but wouldn't you want to balance current play extending by generating choice instead of constraining by adding rules per see. EVE has so many rules (and lots rightfully so) and I feel this further complicates calculations. Perhaps some spreadsheet lovers will hate me but with this change you'd have to do more calculations, and so do 3rd party developers (which you reffernce as an future example) cause the game doesn't provide any decent insight (little snarky but perhaps says something about the feature as it stand without the added rules even).
you'd restrain certain players from certain play which other players can. That can lead to the game feeling more dull (more afkness waiting out timers). For me i'd want to make my play sessions meaningfull or even something I can write home about.

Now concluding, as a somewhat old eve player I yet have marginal knowledge of the real big nullsec play and rules so I will refrain from posting concrete ideas(don't hate me ^^), but I have seen 1 post (and I have read many) that did have an idea that I would like to quote, and its actually from a goonie!. Perhaps you could itterate on it with my suggestions on his/her idea. I think its a step towards simplifyng the change while handing the players with more versatile choices to travel and tackling some of the way current meta for traveling and some of the associated combat.

xttz wrote:
Probably a bit late to spitball, but what the hell.

1) Set all ship jump ranges to exactly 10 light years. Carriers, Titans, Blops, everything. Starbase JBs remain at 5LY.
2) Jump fatigue is measured from 1-100%. Whenever you jump, your fatigue is increased by whatever percentage of 10LY you jump. So a 4LY jump adds 40% fatigue, 8.5LY adds 85%, etc. Simple.
3) Fatigue decays on a curve akin to shields and cap regen, just in reverse. This means that it's much quicker to go from 30% to 20% than from 100% to 90%.
4) Until the fatigue decays completely, this percentage is a limit on subsequent jumps. Someone with a 90% fatigue cannot jump more than 1LY, while someone on 35% fatigue can jump up to 6.5LY
5) Special-cases like blops, freighters and JFs build fatigue at a reduced rate (50% is probably fair).
6) Training Jump Drive Calibration speeds up fatigue decay.

This is far simpler to understand for players, easier to do math on the fly, and means less sitting around waiting on cooldown timers doing nothing in what's meant to be a video game. Inter-region travel is just as slow, but local travel is viable. There's an incentive for players to make shorter jumps or take gates, as recovering from a long jump would take much longer than several shorter ones.
The higher range introduces a trade-off for jump-capable combat ships; the further away they hide the easier it is to make a surprise attack, but the harder it becomes to get away again. In the future, power projection can be tuned by simply adjusting the base rate of fatigue decay.

Examples:

An Archon pilot jumps from Sahkt to Karan, a distance of 6.32LY. After the jump, his fatigue is set at 63.2%. His next jump must be 3.68LY or less, although this will gradually increase as fatigue decays.

A jump freighter pilot jumps from CCP-US to DO6H-Q, a distance of 3.24LY. After the jump, his fatigue is set at a reduced rate of 16.2% (half of 32.4%). His next jump must be 8.38LY or less, although this will gradually increase as fatigue decays.

A Rifter pilot takes a starbase jump bridge between CCP-US and DO6H-Q, a distance of 3.24LY. After the jump, his fatigue is set at 32.4%. His next jump must be 6.76LY or less, meaning he can use at least one more Jump Bridge immediately. This means a return trip is easily possible, but using more than 1-2 bridges means a lengthy delay.
Edisonn Trent
White Noise.
#272 - 2014-10-09 20:42:51 UTC
Querns wrote:
Edisonn Trent wrote:
marVLs wrote:
Fail CCP... You just insure us that nothing will change in EVE... sad that EVE is not Your's anymore but it belongs to crying lazy babies of null...

It could be the biggest and best change in game in last few years, but it end as biggest fail...



Have to agree, at least partly. Now any alliance with large numbers can just train lots of pilots to fly jfs and guarantee that they can move their subcaps with double the range of any cap fleet and with a much lower cooloff time. The previous changes dealt with both big problems in null- capital proliferation and the nigh invulnerability in numbers. Now the second part is gone, cause even though say goons won't be able to move their caps around the map, they can still run their hordes from one side of the map to another whenever they feel like it.

Actually, increasing the range of a JF doesn't change the amount of TIME it takes to move at all. Nor does it the cost. Both fatigue and fuel consumption are measured in light years. I might be able to jump twice as far in one jump in a Jump Freighter, but I have to wait twice as long for jump cooldown, twice as long for jump fatigue to wear off, and pay twice the isotope cost. All increasing the range does is make more of nullsec accessible from lowsec and make all routes take fewer cyno alts.



90% reduction means that transport fleets will move a lot faster than capital fleets. Pretty easy to turn unarmed jfs into offensive gambits with that.
Tikitina
Doomheim
#273 - 2014-10-09 20:42:52 UTC
afkalt wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
xttz wrote:
Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.


Discussing it.



You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors.

HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.


or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength



Doesnt fix the problem of them jumping a gate and instantly leaving - that was the issue at hand. With being unable to bubble - you cant stop that. Unless there's something artificial stopping the gate jump.



Ok, change the align mechanic to where each ship class has a minimum align time and all things that affect align time stack logarithmically to that minimum align time.

Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#274 - 2014-10-09 20:43:27 UTC
Jumping a super through a gate less than half its size is as silly as docking one. I suggest gates instead work like an assisted cyno which doesn't consume fuel or cap and spawns you 12k off the gate. This way you could also require 95% jump cap to limit supers in lowsec from easily deaggressing, taking gate and jumping out.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#275 - 2014-10-09 20:43:47 UTC
Belinda HwaFang wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We've collected, parsed and thoroughly discussed your *extensive* feedback on the proposed long-distance travel changes, both in the official thread and elsewhere, consulted with the CSM, and made adjustments accordingly.

Conclusions we have reached through this exercise:
[list]
  • The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be.
  • It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.



  • Don't you see that by bowing to pressure from the renter serf and lord accounts that this means it is even less likely that Nullsec industry takes off? Remember your goal was to make the universe bigger, and to make it a meaningful decision to live in Omist, instead of it just being yet another convenient region to rent.

    I can see that there is a potential problem with the way T2 resources are spread out for nullsec self-sufficiency, and if this is the only reason you are watering down your nerf so much for JF's and titan bridged freighters, then so be it, but please get working on a new moon system so that we can have the original planned changes in all their glory.

    By keeping JF's at 10 , and buffing groups that can just bridge freighters around you just destroy any chance of nullsec industry taking off. People will just continue to stock nullsec from Jita and the industry game continues to stagnate, not to mention the already noted potential to deploy HAC / T3 fleets quickly across the universe with a JF + pods in ceptors.

    Why the random nerf to the rorqual btw? I know we've been waiting for a Rorqual update for years but since the ship isn't being used how you originally imagined it (in a belt, tractoring jetcans, crushing ore etc) you just decide to nerf it because the players are using it as a hauler? Why not wait until you have the new rorqual redesign ready and nerf it then?

    Do the right thing CCP Greyscale, do what is right in terms of game design, not what those who control the CSM are crying out for.

    --
    Fang



    Were you seriously planning to invest tens of billions into local production for just 10-100 guys in your far-away region?
    That seems irrational from a business perspective.
    You'd need hundreds of BPOs and huge stockpiles of lots and lots of different materials to be self-sustaining.

    Tbh maybe I just don't understand the vision of self-sustaining 0.0 industry but seems like the ROI would be so bad that it would still be better to do logistics no matter how difficult it is, at least for some stuff. And then you'd just bring everything you need anyway.
    FearlessLittleToaster
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #276 - 2014-10-09 20:44:20 UTC
    Greyscale,

    Thank you for listening. Null may still be a pain to move around in but I can now feasibly base next to the bad men (or the good men, this designation being 100% a matter of perspective) and go shoot them without huge travel times. I still think the hit to JBs and Rorquals is a bit harsh, but those are problems that can be worked around, unlike having to move a million cubic meters of cargo 5ly at a time. Now eve is going to get interesting again, but in a good way.
    Edisonn Trent
    White Noise.
    #277 - 2014-10-09 20:44:24 UTC
    Mr Omniblivion wrote:
    Medalyn Isis wrote:

    So I guess I am just a little confused on the sudden and complete 180 u turn.


    Even with these small changes, more regional fights will kick up, because there will be less fear of getting hotdropped from across the galaxy.


    Except for subcaps, which is like 90% of all ships in eve.
    Crysantos Callahan
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #278 - 2014-10-09 20:44:53 UTC
    Approved, although I don't really like freighters being able to be portal'ed with the JF bonus, all other haulers should be fine imo.

    I think that doing this in three major (plus smaller readjustments) steps is a very smooth way to tackle different issues and iterate on them. The JF reliability is a result of the convenience of jumping down cynos and the "tedious" work that needs to be done locally to be able to supply a local market - plus you need to import stuff anyway to make up for regional differences. Is it correct that you'll try to even out regional differences in resource availability to support more local markets and empires? Then you can downscale JF range and boni to enforce it.

    On the other hand I still see a very big problem hitting deep nullsec space. Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some kind of "reward" for living in the middle of nowhere with a lot of trouble to get to civilization (low/highsec) - but it shouldn't be that hard to hit it with the current design of nullsec. Why not introduce small NPC islands in deeper 0.0 - either in between regions or insected in currently poorly used space (which can be explained then by the narrative of incursions and lack of defense), creating more content and opportunity for invasions. You still need to get there, but at least you'd have a staging point for launching it - and the defender has an evacuation point, too. This would enable smaller and especially new entities to risk an assault without the need to risk all their assets at once.

    All these changes aim in a very good direction but you still need to enable and motivate people to move to nullsec and risk stuff, not because of ratting. But due to the ability to carve out your own space, challenge old entities and give it a shot, make space more dynamic. When you take a look at most invasions you'll see what I mean, where they are staged from and why. Shake things up, now is the time to do it and people are mad anyway.

    Interesting times ahead, glad to see some old people logging back into the game and how excited many people are to see some changes!
    Circumstantial Evidence
    #279 - 2014-10-09 20:45:37 UTC
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    xttz wrote:
    Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out.
    Discussing it.
    A supercap in lowsec jumps a gate: implies gates were the intended travel plan. An escape cyno may not be on standby, or in jump range, in every case. A HIC with focused disrupt script loaded has a fair chance to stop a super who was gate travelling, without an escape cyno ready.
    Drago Shouna
    Doomheim
    #280 - 2014-10-09 20:46:52 UTC
    Ncc 1709 wrote:
    Please increase the Mexallon in nullsec ores


    Please increase Nocxium in high sec ores, oh, and lots more nullsec ore belt spawns in high sec...cheers.

    Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

    Welcome to EVE.