These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1121 - 2014-10-13 09:59:27 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
One of the truly boring fixtures of this game is travel time. Whether for fedex missions, op staging, immigration, or market access. Nothing I have heard here, put for by ANYONE - trolls, Greyscale, pros, or cons - has shown me anywhere close to a good enough side effect of this radical mobility nerf to justify the aggravation and wasted player time its going to cause.

So let's just make carriers, dreads, etc be able to jump from one side to the other, with absolutely no restrictions, since "travel time is boring"?

Polo Marco wrote:
Sov wars are already unpopular due to boredom and the amount of free playing time those who participate must sacrifice. I don't see this doing anything more than setting the status quo in concrete by costing those who want to grow more precious playing time. Once the JF nerf was lowered just slightly below train wreck economic status, and the megacorps managed to smother their logistics carriers, their only comments have been rather smugly satisfied. Curious that, as this nerf anvil is designed to hit them where it hurts the most.

No, sov wars are unpopular due to the sov system basically tossing most of what pertains to strategy out the window and turned it into a "who has the most force they can stuff into a single system for the final timer" shitstorm. You realize that, right?
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#1122 - 2014-10-13 10:14:26 UTC
SpikeyWelsh wrote:
Dear CCP fozzie,

I would like to ask you when you gonne implement the jumpfuel reduction low slot mods that you prommised a while ago.


Thanks for the 10ly !!

Regards
Spikey


they were put in a few patch ago.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1123 - 2014-10-13 10:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Lord TGR wrote:

No, sov wars are unpopular due to the sov system basically tossing most of what pertains to strategy out the window and turned it into a "who has the most force they can stuff into a single system for the final timer" shitstorm. You realize that, right?


I have at least a dozen fits, capital and sub, strictly for tower repping. one of the reasons they are so useful is that when the structure comes out from RF the other guy has lost interest and doesn't show up.

BIG YAWN.

But see, the sov rules came about because null was turning into a ghost town - or so I am told - I wasn't doing more in 0.0 then than just riding thru for the thrill. I know lots of vets who will probably never permanently live there again because they got kicked out of system after system. One guy offered to contract me fifty billion Isk worth of his stuff still sitting down in Delve, and said if I could get it back for him he'd follow me anywhere. :)

What I think would eventually happen, if the null population is allowed to grow, and sovereignity rules used concord fees to penalize idle space, and excessively large titleholders as per:

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

is that the current PAX MEGACORPUS (hey I just coined that :P ) will dissolve under its own weight. No need to use burdensome, indfividual player punishing rule changes to try to beat the game into some dev's personal vision.

Tell Mittenz if he really wants to be a troublemaker to start a campaign in favor of REFUNDING sps to all the players who want to trade there cap skills in.

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

Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1124 - 2014-10-13 10:47:19 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
One of the truly boring fixtures of this game is travel time. Whether for fedex missions, op staging, immigration, or market access. Nothing I have heard here, put for by ANYONE - trolls, Greyscale, pros, or cons - has shown me anywhere close to a good enough side effect of this radical mobility nerf to justify the aggravation and wasted player time its going to cause.

So let's just make carriers, dreads, etc be able to jump from one side to the other, with absolutely no restrictions, since "travel time is boring"?



Well since we are going to argue absurdities here, and since this alt is mainly my trader.....
He thinks that JFs should have a 15ly range and regular freighters a warp speed of 3. O_O

Just sayin'......

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

Shuckstar
Blue Dreams Plus
#1125 - 2014-10-13 10:54:18 UTC
Faren Shalni wrote:
Can you reduce the training time on JDC as now it is no longer worth the 40 days needed to get it 5.

Also is the max jump range still 5 ly as on sisi the titan range with JDC 4 is 7ly


no, otherwise i want extra training time given to me for free for the time i spent training them skills, Let it stay as it is.

CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1126 - 2014-10-13 10:57:35 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
No, sov wars are unpopular due to the sov system basically tossing most of what pertains to strategy out the window and turned it into a "who has the most force they can stuff into a single system for the final timer" shitstorm. You realize that, right?

I have at least a dozen fits, capital and sub, strictly for tower repping. one of the reasons they are so useful is that when the structure comes out from RF the other guy has lost interest and doesn't show up.

BIG YAWN.

This has nothing to do with the sov system.

Polo Marco wrote:
But see, the sov rules came about because null was turning into a ghost town - or so I am told

Then you were told wrong, the sov system wasn't changed because "null" was turning into a "ghost town".
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1127 - 2014-10-13 11:00:24 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
What I think would eventually happen, if the null population is allowed to grow, and sovereignity rules used concord fees to penalize idle space, and excessively large titleholders as per:

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

is that the current PAX MEGACORPUS (hey I just coined that :P ) will dissolve under its own weight. No need to use burdensome, indfividual player punishing rule changes to try to beat the game into some dev's personal vision.

Yes, I've read that post multiple times, it was a terrible idea then, it's still a terrible idea 2 weeks later.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
#1128 - 2014-10-13 11:38:57 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
I know lots of vets who will probably never permanently live there again because they got kicked out of system after system. One guy offered to contract me fifty billion Isk worth of his stuff still sitting down in Delve, and said if I could get it back for him he'd follow me anywhere. :)



Add me to this group.

Every Sov war since they began has been an Evac in the making. That's not even a realistic option now unless you are 5 AU to a mechanically forced, neutral position - .aka NPC stations. I'm wondering if that's not the underlying plan though.

To be realistic though, I don't know what CCP can do to get me to dedicate to Null. It still feels like a suckers bet and a scam.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1129 - 2014-10-13 11:49:19 UTC
Ocih wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
I know lots of vets who will probably never permanently live there again because they got kicked out of system after system. One guy offered to contract me fifty billion Isk worth of his stuff still sitting down in Delve, and said if I could get it back for him he'd follow me anywhere. :)



Add me to this group.

Every Sov war since they began has been an Evac in the making. That's not even a realistic option now unless you are 5 AU to a mechanically forced, neutral position - .aka NPC stations. I'm wondering if that's not the underlying plan though.

To be realistic though, I don't know what CCP can do to get me to dedicate to Null. It still feels like a suckers bet and a scam.

You do realize that in a proper sov system, capitals wouldn't be as required as they are in today's **** system, right?
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1130 - 2014-10-13 12:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
What I think would eventually happen, if the null population is allowed to grow, and sovereignity rules used concord fees to penalize idle space, and excessively large titleholders as per:

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

is that the current PAX MEGACORPUS (hey I just coined that :P ) will dissolve under its own weight. No need to use burdensome, indfividual player punishing rule changes to try to beat the game into some dev's personal vision.

Yes, I've read that post multiple times, it was a terrible idea then, it's still a terrible idea 2 weeks later.



Not so funny this one huh? Good. It just night work.....


Sorta like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_0--PQqytU

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1131 - 2014-10-13 12:27:00 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
What I think would eventually happen, if the null population is allowed to grow, and sovereignity rules used concord fees to penalize idle space, and excessively large titleholders as per:

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

is that the current PAX MEGACORPUS (hey I just coined that :P ) will dissolve under its own weight. No need to use burdensome, indfividual player punishing rule changes to try to beat the game into some dev's personal vision.

Yes, I've read that post multiple times, it was a terrible idea then, it's still a terrible idea 2 weeks later.



Not so funny this one huh? Good. It just night work.....


Sorta like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_0--PQqytU

Funny? It was all over the place, and made no sense.

I mean, stop hotdropping by making renter empires unprofitable? I've no idea how you got this idea to start with, and I've no idea what the logic is behind this, but I fail to see the connection since one is not connected to the other in any way, shape or form.

Increase cost of systems for sov owners above a certain number? Say hello to goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3, goonswarm4, goonswarm5, goonswarm6, goonswarm7, goonswarm8, goonswarm9, goonswarm10. Congratulations, you've fixed absolutely nothing.

And unless nullsec has died down drastically on the ratting/mining/etc side since we won the last big war, most of the systems in nullsec should have a ratting index of at least 3, unless we're talking about backwater systems which doesn't even make strategic sense to hold apart from "well at least the other guy can't take it".

No, the problem isn't isk, it isn't the lack of a sliding scale of sov ownership costs, it's merely the fact that CCP have let various mechanics (like sov) sit still for far too long in an absolute **** state, combined with the fact that more and more players are now capital capable, which means that just like titans of olde (which were supposed to be limited to a handful in the entire universe), they've been used in ways which break the game and make it absolute ****.
Malcaz
Corostatos
#1132 - 2014-10-13 12:45:15 UTC
The jump fatigue mechanism will only increase and solidify the _relative_ power of large alliances because they have many more pilots that can jump than the smaller organizations, so it is easier for them to get around those limitations.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1133 - 2014-10-13 13:03:43 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
I mean, stop hotdropping by making renter empires unprofitable? I've no idea how you got this idea to start with, and I've no idea what the logic is behind this, but I fail to see the connection since one is not connected to the other in any way, shape or form.


Well then if they aren't connected in any way why are they being messed with?

Lord TGR wrote:
Increase cost of systems for sov owners above a certain number? Say hello to goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3, goonswarm4, goonswarm5, goonswarm6, goonswarm7, goonswarm8, goonswarm9, goonswarm10. Congratulations, you've fixed absolutely nothing.


That sounds like a LOT of wallets. You know that many people in Eve that you trust THAT much?


Lord TGR wrote:
And unless nullsec has died down drastically on the ratting/mining/etc side since we won the last big war, most of the systems in nullsec should have a ratting index of at least 3, unless we're talking about backwater systems which doesn't even make strategic sense to hold apart from "well at least the other guy can't take it".


Even a MEH quality plain 0 sov system with good upgrades and a station can comfortably support 20 pilots. since there are 3000 + nullsec system in the cluster then there is at least room for 60,000. CCP could start a subscription drive and still not fill it.


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

CyberRaver
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1134 - 2014-10-13 13:22:35 UTC
I honestly think these changes are for the better of the game

~However~



Until CCP can solve the crippling lag and general **** poor servers when gangs as little as 250 move around this is going to make everything completely and utterly ****, the quality of life for all entities will go down the toilet massively


It just means that there will be less movement in general because the game cannot handle it in its current state



15 jumps with 5 minute never ending tunnels, and tidi is a complete farce, fix this **** already
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1135 - 2014-10-13 13:25:18 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
I mean, stop hotdropping by making renter empires unprofitable? I've no idea how you got this idea to start with, and I've no idea what the logic is behind this, but I fail to see the connection since one is not connected to the other in any way, shape or form.


Well then if they aren't connected in any way why are they being messed with?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't paid any attention whatsoever with how often entities like PL, NCdot or even CFC have gone to the other side of the universe because "titans tackled", then.

Which, more often than not has fuckall to do with renters, except if they're dumb renters who, for some reason, think "hurr a titan is the biggest ship in the game it must be the endgame I must have a titan oh god oh god oh god why are they shooting my titan nooooooo".

Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Increase cost of systems for sov owners above a certain number? Say hello to goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3, goonswarm4, goonswarm5, goonswarm6, goonswarm7, goonswarm8, goonswarm9, goonswarm10. Congratulations, you've fixed absolutely nothing.


That sounds like a LOT of wallets. You know that many people in Eve that you trust THAT much?

A single person can do that, you know. You've solved absolutely nothing.

Polo Marco wrote:
Even a MEH quality plain 0 sov system with good upgrades and a station can comfortably support 20 pilots. since there are 3000 + nullsec system in the cluster then there is at least room for 60,000. CCP could start a subscription drive and still not fill it.

It doesn't take 20 pilots to get a system into your "minimal cost" idea, which you'll probably see if you check the military index now. I can't check myself, since I don't have eve installed on this computer, but a large majority of systems were well utilized ratting-wise when I last checked. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1136 - 2014-10-13 13:40:42 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
It doesn't take 20 pilots to get a system into your "minimal cost" idea, which you'll probably see if you check the military index now. I can't check myself, since I don't have eve installed on this computer, but a large majority of systems were well utilized ratting-wise when I last checked. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.



Have you ever done anything with an Ihub except bash it?

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1137 - 2014-10-13 13:44:19 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
It doesn't take 20 pilots to get a system into your "minimal cost" idea, which you'll probably see if you check the military index now. I can't check myself, since I don't have eve installed on this computer, but a large majority of systems were well utilized ratting-wise when I last checked. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Have you ever done anything with an Ihub except bash it?

Not the last 3 years, no. Hisec was more profitable.

Your idea's still bad.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1138 - 2014-10-13 14:03:23 UTC
Malcaz wrote:
The jump fatigue mechanism will only increase and solidify the _relative_ power of large alliances because they have many more pilots that can jump than the smaller organizations, so it is easier for them to get around those limitations.


It;s easier for big organizations to get around ALL limitations, which is why we've seen change after change in this game aimed at helping "small groups" turn into things that enriched big groups and snuffed out the smaller groups all together. It's a natural consequence of EVE's core game design and sandbox style games in general.

How you fix or beat this problem is beyond me. I still just get the feeling that these changes will be another example of EVE "rich get richer" tradition rather than what it's intended to be.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1139 - 2014-10-13 14:18:11 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
It doesn't take 20 pilots to get a system into your "minimal cost" idea, which you'll probably see if you check the military index now. I can't check myself, since I don't have eve installed on this computer, but a large majority of systems were well utilized ratting-wise when I last checked. So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Have you ever done anything with an Ihub except bash it?

Not the last 3 years, no. Hisec was more profitable.

Your idea's still bad.


That explains your jurassic position on these issues :)


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

Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#1140 - 2014-10-13 15:33:43 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:


Lord TGR wrote:
Increase cost of systems for sov owners above a certain number? Say hello to goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3, goonswarm4, goonswarm5, goonswarm6, goonswarm7, goonswarm8, goonswarm9, goonswarm10. Congratulations, you've fixed absolutely nothing.


That sounds like a LOT of wallets. You know that many people in Eve that you trust THAT much?



Finally someone understands why that would theoretically be a really big nerf... until you realize most players in this game have multiple accounts.