These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#641 - 2014-10-10 07:56:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • We're not overly concerned about the battle rorqual; if it starts being used in a widespread fashion, we will nerf it, but we're not expecting this to happen.
  • We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.





  • So what you are saying is: You are nerfing ships/specialized fits for getting used.



    Why is the Ishtar still in game then?

    2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

    My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.

    yogizh
    GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
    Goonswarm Federation
    #642 - 2014-10-10 07:57:25 UTC
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Kalissis wrote:
    You have a ton of intel channels,do you really think a drag bubble on JB will go unnoticed? If on scan just use warp offs, EASY. Fact is not the same risk. Nearly none. But you are ignoring again the HUGE factor that you only need to be on the edge (defending) those gates between JBs rest is not important, while going gate to gate you need to cover way more systems. Again, not the same or equal, JB/TITANs way safer then using Interceports gate to gate.


    They go unnoticed, and not only go they unnoticed or are simply ignored there. Some CFC people can tell you. Blink


    That is very true. RIP Cranes.
    Tackling haulers is reasonably easy as they are bulky and even if they can cloak in null a single interdictor can cause a lot of damage. Been on both sides and I don't think that either one of them would be overpowered.
    Llawa
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #643 - 2014-10-10 08:05:38 UTC
    Low Sec still likes this.
    Josef Djugashvilis
    #644 - 2014-10-10 08:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
    Manfred Sideous wrote:
    CCP Greyscale , CCP Seagull



    Hello I am talking to you. You do realize people are now up in arms because a power projection nerf that doesn't hit everything is worthless. These special snowflakes that have slipped past the full scorn of the nerfbat will be abused beyond belief. If you do not think so I think you are gravely naive. With that said I am personally ok with them because I BELEIVE that the changes are only temporary till you get further along the roadmap. I really think you all have a well thought out plan and people havn't begun to see how things you have changed in the past year fit into the roadmap.


    However I encourage you to please be more forthcoming on the roadmap. Let players know whats in the pipe. You don't have to give specifics or exact release dates "Work In Progress". Forgive me for pointing out that we as Eve players have been told so many times throughout the years that " we CCP will get to it". Now I think you are doing wonderful and have earned back most of my confidence in CCP. However , I am not sure the same can be said for a large part of the community. Things like Hilmars "players don't know best" or "18 months" spring to mind.


    TL ; DR

    Step up and Communicate.


    ♥ Manny



    CCP will only disclose what the road map is when the null-sec care bears tell them what it is.

    Edit

    Hard of me, but one can see the point I am making.

    This is not a signature.

    Adrie Atticus
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #645 - 2014-10-10 08:06:57 UTC
    Camper101 wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • We're not overly concerned about the battle rorqual; if it starts being used in a widespread fashion, we will nerf it, but we're not expecting this to happen.
  • We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.





  • So what you are saying is: You are nerfing ships/specialized fits for getting used.



    Why is the Ishtar still in game then?


    Ishtars don't have jump drives?
    Shilalasar
    Dead Sky Inc.
    #646 - 2014-10-10 08:08:11 UTC
    Gorgof Intake wrote:
    When I read of the upcoming changes I was so excited. On forums and over Comms you could feel the anticipation of changes this fundamental to the game. Chaos. Uncertainty. Vulnerability. Finally.

    Skip forward to now and there is a deflation and concern that the Devs involved in these changes are going to bend to the overwhelming cries of the uninspired out there. It's a lot of pressure on you. Its almost instinctual now that no matter what you post, some ******* is going to threaten to unsub because of it. You could be turning the contents of the sandbox into golddust and still people will complain they dont like the color yellow.

    Greyscale, your original changes were spot on. Null sec logistics, movement and resupply needed an overwhelming nerf. By reeling back those changes to something mediocre I dont think you will get the desired effect. I think you are underestimating the Eve communities ability to adapt to change and overcompensating (at the risk of actually creating content and instability) for forum whining that is based more on players ingrained conservatism or perhaps more sinister, the wish to protect their own income sources at the expense of the greater good and longevity of the game as a whole.

    I ask you this again Greyscale. In the framework of the 4 listed points above, now that I can still logistically resupply my alliance with little to no risk, how does this fit into a vision of smaller entities, limited coalition spread and a populated, semi independent nullsec?

    Humanity has always been dragged kicking, crying and screaming into the future by those brave enough to enact their vision. Don't ***** out on us now that you are so, so close.



    EDIT: Also, this is the first time I have posted on the Eve-O forums in nearly two years. God, I feel dirty.


    Well, Greyscale said it himself:

    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.


    a) Chaos is bad, order is good (Reading a michael moorcook book would give some good hints where going full order ends, it is stagnation and death of everything)
    b) Keeping the residents happy is more important than motivating or aquiring new players in null
    c) Forcing the cashcow with the "carrying capacity" to move a tiny bit (though the new fields may be greener) will never happen. Good for incursions , renters and quasi-renters, sucks to be lowsec or j-space, since those do not count

    Less than 24 h ago eve was full of anticipation and excitement for new things to come, some liked what they saw coming some did not. But there was life out there. Now it went straight to "this will cement everything in stagnation even more" resignation and people actually abbandoning the last bit of hope.
    What good is supposed to come from these new changes? A few smallscale capfights more, that is all.

    "May you live in interesting times." Not going to happen.
    Gregor Parud
    Imperial Academy
    #647 - 2014-10-10 08:14:23 UTC
    Cr Turist wrote:
    I have to comment on some of the whinning in this thread. ok so a middle ground was reached YAY! but now all the people that were ooo so happy drinking up tears of capital pilots and logi guys are crying and i think that fantastic.

    i keep hearing people bitching about ooo power projection this ooo they ruin our fights with there legions of assholes and stupid about of capital. why has nobody talked about how IS boxer is a major issue or about how bombers are way to overpowered maybe these are the pilots that love ishtars? you know the ishtar its the crusier hull with t2 resists that does battle ship dps.

    fact is you must find a middle ground. and i think CCP understands that and is trying to please as much of the player base as it can.

    for all the people crying about ooo u didnt stick to your guns bla bla \____/ <----- tears here please



    But what if the initial idea already WAS the middle ground, a result of really long discussions and reiterations?
    Rolf Chr
    RC Industries
    #648 - 2014-10-10 08:18:35 UTC
    In the example posted here http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/long-distance-travel-changes-inbound/?_ga=1.34303975.776383066.1396348573 you write "After waiting for 23.5 minutes at the convenient local station, his fatigue is down to 119.79. He jumps again, to 2R-CRW – 4.9 LY. At this point his cooldown timer is 2 hours 2 minutes 8 seconds, and his fatigue is 706.74. At this point his total distance travelled is 17.51 LY, leaving him with 37.04 LY to go. He looks at his map, and finds a 40-route jump through nullsec to get to the same destination, and figuring two minutes per system, his warp travel time for the whole journey is a bit over half the cooldown for his next jump. He decides to fly there directly rather than trying to jump any further."

    If you really think I (or the rest of eve community) will gatejump any our capitals 40 jumps in nullsec you are insane.. Roll
    I will quit eve long before I even consider doing this. And I will not wait days of week to complete the trip either!!! Evil
    I understand the need to nerf combat capital ship movments, but I need to be able to use it for logistic purposes also.

    I do not know if the math behind all the different spreadsheets available online are correct, but if you look at this example https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IjH2JyeTd0suTC43REymnoiD2TF70HxbkRWqNtJjqds/edit?pli=1#gid=0
    I clearly see that it need to be a upper limit on how much fatigue you gain and accelerate the rate it is reducing with!

    I'm ok with having to sit in station for some time, even a few hours after some jumps but there need to be a upper limit. This is a game. it's suppose to be fun, but with those changes its nothing even close to fun if you need or want to move your capital.

    For PVP purposes again, yes I understand the need to nerf them, but if a single pilot is trying to help his corp moving assets and ships safely into or out of nullsec it will be close to impossibleAttention

    Please consider at least a upper limit on the cooldown that enable a capital pilot to still enjoy the game.
    Polo Marco
    Four Winds
    #649 - 2014-10-10 08:24:28 UTC
    I'm sorry, this whole thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Listen to yourselves...... You are SERIOUSLY discussing (squabbling even....) putting fleet doctrine combat ships in HAULERS then using TITANS to bridge them to staging?

    CAN YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?


    This is as bass-akwards a solution to any problem as I have ever seen.

    If there were geek police in the world they would be monitoring this thread and revoking geek licenses left and right.

    Remember, in a year or two, someone is going to drag up these old posts and taunt you with them.

    If you feel foolish when they do, don't blame me because I TRIED to warn you.


    I'll repost something I said earlier... maybe someone will listen (Yeah... Uh Huuh... Right)





    Polo Marco wrote:
    Vhaine Vhindiscar wrote:
    The whole fatigue thing still sounds over complex, opaque, annoying to implement, and frustrating to track. Now you're having to go back and make exception after exception. I'd really just prefer you take the entire concept back to the drawing board. Nerfing combat capital jump drives and adding a jump timer just sounds so much easier then all of this. I feel like 5 years from now someone will just be cleaning all this messy crap up. It's just uselessly complex for what it offers.




    There's too much collateral damage here.

    1) More grinding, more egg timers. Fun factor = 0. Is this really necessary?

    2) The massive revocation of training time value. Players spent a year's training time to ride a HORSE, not a TURTLE.

    3) Small player entities still take the brunt of the nerf hammer. You SAID it was to help them.......

    4)Economic mayhem. The markets were getting closer and closer to be truly competitive. Big Bloc ability to leverage supply just got a new lease on life.




    We all see what you are trying to do, and most of us want you to succeed. It's never too late to go back and find a better way. It will be a lot easier on you if you do it NOW instead of ending up later shaking your head and looking down at Humpty-Dumpty.



    And just for something positive here is a link to my (Now tired) old post from the first thread, with a different approach:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5078735#post5078735

    Or in a lighter vein, where we are actually TRYING to be funny....

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5103196#post5103196


    Oops my Thread fatigue timer is really up there... time for a cool down....

    Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.

    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #650 - 2014-10-10 08:37:46 UTC
    Brittney Calm 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.


    This would have to be only against supers and capitals, as I can see HIC's being used to cause havic and could be worse then the asshattery with light interdictors and bubbling of stations and being able to re-dock immediately.

    The part of this I dont see working, is if you have 20 supers on a gate with neuts, that hic wont be able to have his modules active for much of anything, and then there goes his tank and his point. Also who gets gate guns agro, does the hic get the agro because he agressed a super? if this is the case and you want gate to gate combat, then give the supers back their drones, or allow them to fit aka rapid light launchers or something to mix it up a little.

    Also CCP greyscale one thought came up about supers and gates, I think the main problem people see is that you are going to have 200 man super fleets going gate to gate for lols. You should make the gate guns hit harder on capitals who choose to agro in lowsec, aka damage fit the class, also if the capital agro's on the gate, his other capital buddies should not be able to remote rep as he is flagged a criminal.

    -BC



    It could be tweaked, I certainly wouldnt want the bubble effect to do it! That why I figured a script or equivalent, potentially also blocking remote sebos too.





    Citadel missiles on gates, only going to hurt the biggest stuff Smile
    Camper101
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #651 - 2014-10-10 08:45:54 UTC
    Adrie Atticus wrote:
    Camper101 wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • We're not overly concerned about the battle rorqual; if it starts being used in a widespread fashion, we will nerf it, but we're not expecting this to happen.
  • We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.





  • So what you are saying is: You are nerfing ships/specialized fits for getting used.



    Why is the Ishtar still in game then?


    Ishtars don't have jump drives?


    You clearly fail to read.

    Greyscales statements imply that they don't care about anything else - they will nerf ANYTHING ppl use a lot just bc , well, they use it.

    So, on a subcap level, why is the Ishtar still there then? This game is basically Ishtars Online for anything subcap.

    2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

    My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.

    rochrius
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #652 - 2014-10-10 08:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: rochrius
    I do not feel that having whole classes of ships basically exempt from jump fatigue will solve the problem of power projection in any way.

    I would prefer for you guys to nerf power projection into the ground and re asses from there than this caring little slap on the wrist power projection is getting.

    Plan B: Delay this until you guys are ready
    Peter Powers
    Terrorists of Dimensions
    #653 - 2014-10-10 08:59:29 UTC
    so yay for the trenches..

    3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications

    Vulfen
    Project Valhalla.
    #654 - 2014-10-10 09:02:23 UTC
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Etrei Kordisin wrote:
    It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.


    It's not a question of trust, it's a question of a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it. The goals of this change are pretty clear, and we're keen to follow up and ensure that we hit them over time.

    CCP needs to leave it in place Bombers gona have a party Poping indy fleets as they try to get to a staging system...
    Inslander Wessette
    Unleashed' Fury
    The Initiative.
    #655 - 2014-10-10 09:02:54 UTC
    Camper101 wrote:
    Adrie Atticus wrote:
    Camper101 wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • We're not overly concerned about the battle rorqual; if it starts being used in a widespread fashion, we will nerf it, but we're not expecting this to happen.
  • We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.





  • So what you are saying is: You are nerfing ships/specialized fits for getting used.



    Why is the Ishtar still in game then?


    Ishtars don't have jump drives?


    You clearly fail to read.

    Greyscales statements imply that they don't care about anything else - they will nerf ANYTHING ppl use a lot just bc , well, they use it.

    So, on a subcap level, why is the Ishtar still there then? This game is basically Ishtars Online for anything subcap.


    Psst will share you a Joke . CCP thinks reducing tracking from 7.5 to 5% is actually a nerf :p . But reducing LML ROF by 6% is actually balancing :D
    Bobbyd
    Kenshin.
    Fraternity.
    #656 - 2014-10-10 09:10:16 UTC
    Vlade Randal wrote:
    +1 Great idea changing jump freighter jump range to 10ly

    The Rorqual is used a lot in nullsec transport, for dropping control towers, fueling pos, and as an alternative logistical transport ship for those lacking the skills or isk for a jump freighter. It plays a vital role in current nullsec logistics at present. Therefore, I suggest that the rorqual should also have the 10ly range to enable it to continue its vital role in 0.0.

    The only other suggestion I would make, is that 5ly is marginally short for reaching key logistics points that have stations to dock in. Several of the jump routes i have looked at are 5.1ly to 5.8ly. Therefore I recommend increasing maximum jump range of combat vessels to 6ly. This would still achieve the goal of reducing force projection, while keeping it reasonably painless to move combat ships over time when needed.


    Id say keep the 11LY range, this would ensure the logistics side of null isn't hurt but curbing the forces projection that we all dread.

    Bring back the small gang warfare we all love and not break the eve economy!

    on another note maybe not change the range of capital ships but change the mechanics for cynos jump bridges and portals to alliance only, add 5min cool down on jump drives for STD caps and 1 min on Rorq Jump freighter and black ops ,

    this would reduce the large scale blobs and not eliminate the 80 v 80 battles that are fun and don't need Tidi...

    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #657 - 2014-10-10 09:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
    Polo Marco wrote:
    I'm sorry, this whole thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Listen to yourselves...... You are SERIOUSLY discussing (squabbling even....) putting fleet doctrine combat ships in HAULERS then using TITANS to bridge them to staging?

    CAN YOU NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?


    This is as bass-akwards a solution to any problem as I have ever seen.

    If there were geek police in the world they would be monitoring this thread and revoking geek licenses left and right.

    Remember, in a year or two, someone is going to drag up these old posts and taunt you with them.

    If you feel foolish when they do, don't blame me because I TRIED to warn you.


    I think the more sensible people are more concerned about the viability of seeding areas with ships, then using indys as jump taxis to essentially bypass timers and restrictions CCP tried to create. An argument rages whether interceptors are better/faster for this.

    Me, I think people aren't dumb and it will be a mix of both ship types.

    I do not agree with sub cap transports being gifted fatigue reduction now. I can see a need to perhaps assess that later, but right now I wouldnt see the issue with the sub cap transports being left as originally slated.
    Captain Awkward
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #658 - 2014-10-10 09:14:46 UTC
    Camper101 wrote:
    Adrie Atticus wrote:
    Camper101 wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • We're not overly concerned about the battle rorqual; if it starts being used in a widespread fashion, we will nerf it, but we're not expecting this to happen.
  • We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.





  • So what you are saying is: You are nerfing ships/specialized fits for getting used.



    Why is the Ishtar still in game then?


    Ishtars don't have jump drives?


    You clearly fail to read.

    Greyscales statements imply that they don't care about anything else - they will nerf ANYTHING ppl use a lot just bc , well, they use it.

    So, on a subcap level, why is the Ishtar still there then? This game is basically Ishtars Online for anything subcap.


    What he said is when people start to "ab"use something to baypass a intendet design goal, then they will change that.
    Copper Khai
    #659 - 2014-10-10 09:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Copper Khai
    You made a bold move before. I'm surprised and saddened to see CCP cave again. The logistical challenges ahead were the most interesting part of the nerf. I know, you'll get to it later, sure. Like you did with Incarna. I'm still waiting to meet Sleepers face to face.

    Here's the undoing -

    1. Endless ships from Jita will mean pvpers will continue to be combat-subsidized, Endless because ISK drain is not a deterrent. You were right the first time by requiring RL time (nothing else nerfs) to generate the hardware. Big alliances would have to scrounge, harvest, organize their markets of munitions and fleets. They might finally patrol or protect their mining fleets.

    2. All the strategy of disrupting or siphoning other peoples industry is gone. Hitting supply lines, defending pipes. Breaking gatecamps, escorting convoys... nope.

    3. This JF change really hurts medium alliances that have a more diverse player base. They can support themselves off the land better than large mostly afk alliances. Big alliances (like mine) will resume business as usual setting up multiple regional barracks with supply lines to Jita.

    Bitterness.
    I'd like to buy a CCP that doesn't shrink. Players were complaining and op-eding what to do. You went further than expected, blew open the game and showed everyone who wore the pants... then you took them off and handed them back to the players, and practically apologized for getting them upset. That's what is seems.

    ---
    I'm in a very supercap heavy, NC/PL alliance, own JF (and Rorq, and several caps) - and was willing to take the hit for the betterment of the smaller alliances.
    Keith Planck
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #660 - 2014-10-10 09:42:13 UTC
    there goes incentives to include indy production in nullsec
    rip