These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1141 - 2014-10-13 15:34:38 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.
So, basically your proposal encourages an existing system such as PL/N3 where they let players use the space in exchange for payments that ensure the renter doesnt get roflstomped out of their systems and replaced with the next eager tenant. And a simple change to breaking up NA/BoT into smaller alliances (most likely based of regions and still ultimately answering to the landlord) would circumvent any extra costs. It doesnt change any active factors. And if the landlords notice certain space not being worth the cost due to underuse, they let the sov drop and simply smack down any attempts to take it from them without proper compensation. This is all easily done with current mechanics. These changes don't completely render that impossible. It is one step in a process. And i dont expect renting to ever disappear so long as one person wants the benefits of the space without taking the major risks and is willing to pay for it.

The current situation allows massive blob of large ships to have relative agility much higher than even the fastest small ships, in the form of jump drives. The changes will curb that movement.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1142 - 2014-10-13 16:12:07 UTC
Rowells 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.
So, basically your proposal encourages an existing system such as PL/N3 where they let players use the space in exchange for payments that ensure the renter doesnt get roflstomped out of their systems and replaced with the next eager tenant. And a simple change to breaking up NA/BoT into smaller alliances (most likely based of regions and still ultimately answering to the landlord) would circumvent any extra costs. It doesnt change any active factors. And if the landlords notice certain space not being worth the cost due to underuse, they let the sov drop and simply smack down any attempts to take it from them without proper compensation. This is all easily done with current mechanics. These changes don't completely render that impossible. It is one step in a process. And i dont expect renting to ever disappear so long as one person wants the benefits of the space without taking the major risks and is willing to pay for it.

The current situation allows massive blob of large ships to have relative agility much higher than even the fastest small ships, in the form of jump drives. The changes will curb that movement.


My proposal would also leave a lot of FREE SPACE. With no sov. The fragmenting of the blocs themselves can be worked around in a general way with alt alliances and the like, but it places just that much more game grind burden -alliance fees office billing structure maintenance etc - on the relatively limited circle of players at the top management of a megacorp, not the average player. And we have seen over and over that burnout is the biggest giant killer of all in this game. Punishing all the players hoping to curb the behavior of a few will not likely solve the problem and will probably put more strain on a business model that is already facing declining player population.

Don't blame the rules of the game here. Historically speaking, what we have here is DETENTE. 2 or 3 massive power blocs shying away from a major war which would probably destroy everybody involved. The RL cold war was eased off through diplomacy and the natural power erosion that comes to all powerful political entities at some point. There was no divine intervention. Zeus's hammer didn't come flying out of the heavens and strike the nuclear arsenals of the world down.

And whether he wants it to or not, Greyscale's hammer isn't going to do that either. No matter how hard he swings it.

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1143 - 2014-10-13 16:36:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Polo Marco wrote:
Rowells 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.
So, basically your proposal encourages an existing system such as PL/N3 where they let players use the space in exchange for payments that ensure the renter doesnt get roflstomped out of their systems and replaced with the next eager tenant. And a simple change to breaking up NA/BoT into smaller alliances (most likely based of regions and still ultimately answering to the landlord) would circumvent any extra costs. It doesnt change any active factors. And if the landlords notice certain space not being worth the cost due to underuse, they let the sov drop and simply smack down any attempts to take it from them without proper compensation. This is all easily done with current mechanics. These changes don't completely render that impossible. It is one step in a process. And i dont expect renting to ever disappear so long as one person wants the benefits of the space without taking the major risks and is willing to pay for it.

The current situation allows massive blob of large ships to have relative agility much higher than even the fastest small ships, in the form of jump drives. The changes will curb that movement.


My proposal would also leave a lot of FREE SPACE. With no sov. The fragmenting of the blocs themselves can be worked around in a general way with alt alliances and the like, but it places just that much more game grind burden -alliance fees office billing structure maintenance etc - on the relatively limited circle of players at the top management of a megacorp, not the average player. And we have seen over and over that burnout is the biggest giant killer of all in this game. Punishing all the players hoping to curb the behavior of a few will not likely solve the problem and will probably put more strain on a business model that is already facing declining player population.

Don't blame the rules of the game here. Historically speaking, what we have here is DETENTE. 2 or 3 massive power blocs shying away from a major war which would probably destroy everybody involved. The RL cold war was eased off through diplomacy and the natural power erosion that comes to all powerful political entities at some point. There was no divine intervention. Zeus's hammer didn't come flying out of the heavens and strike the nuclear arsenals of the world down.

And whether he wants it to or not, Greyscale's hammer isn't going to do that either. No matter how hard he swings it.

you seem to completely ignored the part where a system with no sov is not free. You still have to take it from the neighbors who dont want you there, who in this case, can show up within minutes to crush your hopes and dreams and still be home in a small period of time. And when they get more renters, open up new alliance and claim sov. And as a group grows you get a larger group of talent to tap into (and pay) to do things for you. And since the landlord has authority over these renters they can

And the real life cold war had quite a few more factors involved than eve does. Most importantly the fact that people could actually die and preferred not too. Also considering the fact that most blocs are avoiding massive wars because 4000+ player 10% tidi fights are cool events, but not very fun for the average person.

And like it's been said multiple times, this is not a single swing of the hammer in hopes the nail goes in, it is a tap that will drive it farther. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is the final or most important step in the process. And in that logic, don't thin any single 'silver bullet' change will solve all the problems. Thats bad thinking.

E: also be aware, renter empires are a symptom not the problem itself.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1144 - 2014-10-13 16:42:20 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
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.



The correct way to create fraction by distrust is not that. Is making all the income source unpredictable, tied solely to the corps executing it and non auditable.

That means something like, moon mining need to be on a POS of a corp with activity in system. The ammount produced vary each day. No one can audit if that corp rellydelivered exaclty how much was produced.

That type of scenario (just a simple example created in 10 seconds, so surely has holes on it) is what could cause distrust in large groups and cause internal attrition.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Finch Ronuken
CH-3TA
#1145 - 2014-10-13 16:53:53 UTC
Dear CCP,

I love you.

A little quote for this awesome dev blog.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
- Frederick Douglass

I re-subbed after hearing about these changes to null-sec. I honestly think that this will help the game. Many people don't like these changes, but you have to understand that they are likely the people that are abusing the current system. This change is for the better, in my opinion. Embrace change people!!!

Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.
- Robert Kennedy

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.
- George Bernard Shaw

keep flying and stay shiny!!!

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1146 - 2014-10-13 17:17:13 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
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 :)

Let's see if we can sum up your idea, then.

Nullsec empires are now renter empires, so you want to kill off renting by making the act of holding too many systems in one alliance, and making disused systems expensive as hell.

So what you're going to end up with, is a lot of alliances under the administration of the same guys who administrate ONE alliance now, to keep costs down. In short, this will not dissuade anyone from holding the same space they do now. And as for low activity/disused systems, all you'll end up with is encouraging even more renting, with a demand that they have a minimum activity level. So basically, renting is going to suck even more **** than it already does now because they'll have to do call to mining or call to ratting just to keep their landlord happy.

So, you complain about how the changes are just clumsily wielded sticks, whereas I, who's been in nullsec constantly since 2009, say that the changes are good. The JF/etc changes are a bit premature, since nullsec still isn't properly independent of jita yet, and the JB changes are a bit weird, but overall it's a ton better and more focused than your idea, which seems to be bourne squarely out of ISK envy, and has more holes in it than a very leaky sieve.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1147 - 2014-10-13 17:43:23 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
My proposal would also leave a lot of FREE SPACE. With no sov. The fragmenting of the blocs themselves can be worked around in a general way with alt alliances and the like, but it places just that much more game grind burden -alliance fees office billing structure maintenance etc - on the relatively limited circle of players at the top management of a megacorp, not the average player. And we have seen over and over that burnout is the biggest giant killer of all in this game. Punishing all the players hoping to curb the behavior of a few will not likely solve the problem and will probably put more strain on a business model that is already facing declining player population.

Greyscale's changes aren't hurting "everyone", especially not after he backed off slightly on the JF change. And from my POV, what Greyscale has said about what they want to do and why they're doing it, his ideas are a damn sight more long-term than "hurr make holding 20 systems cost 10x as much as holding 19 systems, and if they aren't running CTR/CTM daily to keep their indexes up it'll cost even MORE, all to "free up" some systems for people who aren't even good enough now to rent from the existing landlords".

Oh, and you do realize that if it isn't the corps in the alliances themselves which have to do a call to rat/mining to keep the indexes up, then it'll be the guys doing what you don't like: renting. It'll turn into even more of a grind for them. But that doesn't matter, as long as we stick it to the "big guys", right?

Polo Marco wrote:
Don't blame the rules of the game here. Historically speaking, what we have here is DETENTE. 2 or 3 massive power blocs shying away from a major war which would probably destroy everybody involved. The RL cold war was eased off through diplomacy and the natural power erosion that comes to all powerful political entities at some point. There was no divine intervention. Zeus's hammer didn't come flying out of the heavens and strike the nuclear arsenals of the world down.

So you really don't know why EVE is currently as stagnant as it is right now, do you, considering you seem to think "removing renting" and "force everyone to drop sov because it's so expensive" is going to fix it.

Polo Marco wrote:
And whether he wants it to or not, Greyscale's hammer isn't going to do that either. No matter how hard he swings it.

Pretty certain he'll come closer to fixing nullsec with his changes than you ever will with your changes.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1148 - 2014-10-13 17:54:22 UTC
Rowells wrote:
you seem to completely ignored the part where a system with no sov is not free. You still have to take it from the neighbors who dont want you there, who in this case, can show up within minutes to crush your hopes and dreams and still be home in a small period of time. And when they get more renters, open up new alliance and claim sov. And as a group grows you get a larger group of talent to tap into (and pay) to do things for you. And since the landlord has authority over these renters they can

And the real life cold war had quite a few more factors involved than eve does. Most importantly the fact that people could actually die and preferred not too. Also considering the fact that most blocs are avoiding massive wars because 4000+ player 10% tidi fights are cool events, but not very fun for the average person.

And like it's been said multiple times, this is not a single swing of the hammer in hopes the nail goes in, it is a tap that will drive it farther. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is the final or most important step in the process. And in that logic, don't thin any single 'silver bullet' change will solve all the problems. Thats bad thinking.



I never said anyone could waltz in and set up shop . But with empty systems you avoid the preliminaries of having to SBU..RF..yada yada. Maybe you know one of your neighbors. Maybe you just don't feel like F'ing asking that day. The initial steps could be done from a wormhole. A HUGE range of possibilities open up. It's not as easy to stop as just jumping in when the timer runs out and blapping everything in sight.

And whether this is a single swing of the hammer or not is immaterial. Long before I got into MMOs I gamemastered many a D&D campaign. One of the prime tenets of any GOOD DM is to not make or let your players suffer because of your mistakes. Taking actions which limits the play choices of a majority of your players, to address the the actions of a few is one of the worst mistakes you can make.

The clumsy methodology and disregard for the average player here trumps all other issues. The only thing saying there is no other way to do this tells me is that no one is looking.

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

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1149 - 2014-10-13 18:09:45 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
The limit to jumping should be imposed on the cyno generation side of the equation where the sovereign owner applies restrictions which prevent cynos from being generated in their space. This would naturally impose restrictions on how far ships could jump into enemy territory because capitals would have to jump to the boundary and then jump through the stargate to begin the invasion. That idea would extend naturally into high sec when CCP decides to have Concord allow cynos there.

Huh, so...

Cyno jammers?

Cyno jammers would work in this role if they weren't already SO BROKEN. Currently, cyno jammers prevent all cynos and therefore also all jumps into the system. This prevents blues from moving around in blue space. Thus sovereignty brings no advantage to blues AND the sovereign alliance has to pay for the cyno jamming against all cynos EXCEPT the covert ops cyno which almost always is hostile.

The corrected mechanic should be that by default and without any extra charge/costs no one can light a cyno in a system unless they are blue to the sovereign owner. One mechanism for implementing this could be that the TCUs should by default also be cyno jammers.

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1150 - 2014-10-13 18:13:00 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
I never said anyone could waltz in and set up shop . But with empty systems you avoid the preliminaries of having to SBU..RF..yada yada. Maybe you know one of your neighbors. Maybe you just don't feel like F'ing asking that day. The initial steps could be done from a wormhole. A HUGE range of possibilities open up. It's not as easy to stop as just jumping in when the timer runs out and blapping everything in sight.

And whether this is a single swing of the hammer or not is immaterial. Long before I got into MMOs I gamemastered many a D&D campaign. One of the prime tenets of any GOOD DM is to not make or let your players suffer because of your mistakes. Taking actions which limits the play choices of a majority of your players, to address the the actions of a few is one of the worst mistakes you can make.

The clumsy methodology and disregard for the average player here trumps all other issues. The only thing saying there is no other way to do this tells me is that no one is looking.

I never said you couldn't 'waltz in and set up shop'. That doesn't change the fact that you wont be keeping it, which is supposed to be the goal of sov, hold the best you can get for as long as possible.

I can't speak for running a D&D round, but I can imagine its not totally possible to meet everyones expectations and never make mistakes, so this isn't something new.

Also, don't make the mistake of trying to speak for people who aren't here. "the majority" "Most people" "all of us" are not true. Notice how the original thread had supporters and opposers. And a pretty decent split too. Even amongst groups like CFC and N3/PL there is division. Each person has their own attitude toward the changes and can either designate a mouthpiece (supposedly the CSM in a fashion) or by doing it themselves. You may call it disregard to your concerns, but it is in regard to some others concerns. You will never get full agreement from an entire community so don't use it as a standard of crowd-pleasing changes.

And its not that theres no other solution, but a little logic helps us to deduce the best approach. Multiple issues and problems across various spectrums? Highly unlikely for a single aspect to fix everything. CCP thought changing how sov worked with dominion would fix the issues that were present. Yet here we sit. You shouldn't quit your job because it is possible one of your lottery tickets will win.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1151 - 2014-10-13 18:26:34 UTC
Just had a thought that is entirely relevant to force projection.

The proposed changes will make it exceptionally difficult for any super / titan / dread / carrier to catch up to a group if they miss the deployment convoy. This means that being online and active is even more important. It also means that account sharing for supers / titans which is already rampant will be more important. Account sharing is against EULA, but it is a widespread epidemic that should be stopped. So if you're really this adamant about force projection please, crack down on account sharing at the same time.

Account sharing of supers and titans alone itself is a major force projection, and should have been dealt with a long time ago.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1152 - 2014-10-13 18:37:19 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
I never said anyone could waltz in and set up shop . But with empty systems you avoid the preliminaries of having to SBU..RF..yada yada. Maybe you know one of your neighbors. Maybe you just don't feel like F'ing asking that day. The initial steps could be done from a wormhole. A HUGE range of possibilities open up. It's not as easy to stop as just jumping in when the timer runs out and blapping everything in sight.

So you're not saying anyone could waltz in and set up shop, but ... they could just waltz in and set up shop because they wouldn't have to clean up the old mess. Gotcha.

Polo Marco wrote:
And whether this is a single swing of the hammer or not is immaterial. Long before I got into MMOs I gamemastered many a D&D campaign. One of the prime tenets of any GOOD DM is to not make or let your players suffer because of your mistakes. Taking actions which limits the play choices of a majority of your players, to address the the actions of a few is one of the worst mistakes you can make.

So that just means that CCP are being good DMs by making sure players aren't suffering because of CCP's long-standing mistakes, by fixing the problem of overly easy movement of things like carriers, dreads etc, and you can't say that carriers, dreads etc are in a good position with how quickly they can move from one side of the universe to the other.

Polo Marco wrote:
The clumsy methodology and disregard for the average player here trumps all other issues. The only thing saying there is no other way to do this tells me is that no one is looking.

This is the first phase in what seems to be a 3 step process (possibly more, I don't know). They're making movement of caps etc more strategic, and even though Greyscale's added JBs and JFs etc to the list of changes, he has made changes to it to make hauling stuff not suck too much in an enlarged EVE universe.

It's certainly less clumsy than the suggestion which'll be circumvented by just creating more alliances to reduce the costs.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1153 - 2014-10-13 18:39:29 UTC
GeeBee wrote:
Just had a thought that is entirely relevant to force projection.

The proposed changes will make it exceptionally difficult for any super / titan / dread / carrier to catch up to a group if they miss the deployment convoy. This means that being online and active is even more important. It also means that account sharing for supers / titans which is already rampant will be more important. Account sharing is against EULA, but it is a widespread epidemic that should be stopped. So if you're really this adamant about force projection please, crack down on account sharing at the same time.

Account sharing of supers and titans alone itself is a major force projection, and should have been dealt with a long time ago.

all i've heard is rumors about this. Is there any evidence about this (other than the single point example from that CSM dude)?
xXThe EntityXx
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#1154 - 2014-10-13 18:55:31 UTC
Querns wrote:
xXThe EntityXx wrote:
I hope you guys realize that these changes still do not allow the supply of anything to Venal unless you own Tribute, essentially making it SOV space rather than NPC nullsec. The shortest jump available is 10.028 ly, just outside the range of a JF.

Close, but keep trying. There's actually a way in under the 10LY range.

I guess I could TELL you, but what would be the fun in that?


I don't count jumping to a non station system. Too dangerous for a supply chain.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1155 - 2014-10-13 18:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Rowells wrote:
I never said you couldn't 'waltz in and set up shop'. That doesn't change the fact that you wont be keeping it, which is supposed to be the goal of sov, hold the best you can get for as long as possible.


Just think it through......FC could pay some hisec wannabes , or get some of their own volunteers to go to ANY open system in a target's space...... I can see where a little bit of effort at the right time could cause the other guy to work a LOT harder getting rid of it. Whack-a-mole anyone?

Rowells wrote:
Also, don't make the mistake of trying to speak for people who aren't here. "the majority" "Most people" "all of us" are not true. Notice how the original thread had supporters and opposers. And a pretty decent split too. Even amongst groups like CFC and N3/PL there is division. Each person has their own attitude toward the changes and can either designate a mouthpiece (supposedly the CSM in a fashion) or by doing it themselves. You may call it disregard to your concerns, but it is in regard to some others concerns. You will never get full agreement from an entire community so don't use it as a standard of crowd-pleasing changes.


Some people who trained pilots for the better part of a year to ride a HORSE might not be happy getting stuck with a TURTLE.

Ya think?

I'm surprised there's not a petition or thread around about being able to untrain cap skills for an SP refund.

Rowells wrote:
And its not that theres no other solution, but a little logic helps us to deduce the best approach. Multiple issues and problems across various spectrums? Highly unlikely for a single aspect to fix everything. CCP thought changing how sov worked with dominion would fix the issues that were present. Yet here we sit. You shouldn't quit your job because it is possible one of your lottery tickets will win.


No doubt. Depending on which dev you listen to they've as much as said they are trolling the forums for good ideas. They've let these threads run on and on - trolls, R/Qs and all. But I also see dodging negative criticism and being secretive about the 'big plan' and that worries me. So here I sit.

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

True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#1156 - 2014-10-13 19:02:45 UTC
[quote=CCP Greyscale]We didn't think it was sensible to let it keep its drone bonus and have a 10LY range, and at the end of the day the bonus won out. The ship needs a large rework anyway, and we'll revisit all this when that happens :)

Why did a unused bonus win out over a useful ship benefit?

This seems to fall under the same sort of category as your statement in the OP about logistics balance being where it needs to be as the game is today.

Old Days:
Smile Provides a slightly better mining bonus than an Orca
Big smile Could compress Ores for better logistics (and uniquely so)
Smile Has a good jump range, tied with it's Ore Bay allowed it to do more logistics than a JF (cargo specific)
Oops Would never be seen in a belt, drone bonus is effectively useless (pretty, but useless)

Currently (TQ)
Smile Provides a slightly better mining bonus than an Orca
Oops Useless for compression in most cases
Smile Has a good jump range, tied with it's Ore Bay allowed it to do more logistics than a JF (cargo specific)
Oops Would never be seen in a belt, drone bonus is effectively useless (pretty, but useless)

Proposed
Smile Provides a slightly better mining bonus than an Orca
Oops Useless for compression in most cases
Oops Ore Bay is useless due to limited jump range which is dwarfed by the JF
Oops Would never be seen in a belt, drone bonus is effectively useless (pretty, but useless)

I know you say you plan to revisit the Rorqual, which is needed and fair enough, but could you at least leave the poor thing with some sort of remotely viable use until you do? Just like you are not destroying null logistics capabilities until you work on null industry?

I like my Rorqual's drone bonus, but I have never actually used it, and I don't believe most people have. If you give me the option of the drone bonus or 10ly Jump Range, I'll take the jump range for 100 please bob.

If you want to later revisit the Rorqual for the much needed love you agree it needs, then go ahead and reduce it's jump range, hell, even give the drone bonus back if you like, but please, don't just ruin this ship now with a "'we'll make it worth more than scrap later" promise.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1157 - 2014-10-13 19:03:53 UTC
Rowells wrote:
GeeBee wrote:
Just had a thought that is entirely relevant to force projection.

The proposed changes will make it exceptionally difficult for any super / titan / dread / carrier to catch up to a group if they miss the deployment convoy. This means that being online and active is even more important. It also means that account sharing for supers / titans which is already rampant will be more important. Account sharing is against EULA, but it is a widespread epidemic that should be stopped. So if you're really this adamant about force projection please, crack down on account sharing at the same time.

Account sharing of supers and titans alone itself is a major force projection, and should have been dealt with a long time ago.

all i've heard is rumors about this. Is there any evidence about this (other than the single point example from that CSM dude)?


Evidence is hard to come by, you hear rumors about the number of other peoples supers / titans other people have online for the big fights, or people talking about running more supers / titans than they actually own. I doubt anyone will own up to it for risk of being banned. Back in my Cascade Imminent days there was a notable individual in Atlas. That got caught buying isk RMT style. CCP banned any account he had ever been logged into, which included many other peoples supers / titans that he had used. In order to get these accounts un-banned he wrongly confessed to using their accounts without permission or *hacking them* resulting is is own permaban.

TLDR CCP has the IP logs to stop account sharing unless people start using VPN's or proxys to bypass it. They just don't enforce account sharing on its own because its too widespread to police. The best solution would be mandated authenticator FOBs for Supers / Titans, but the chances of this happening are exceptionally low.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1158 - 2014-10-13 19:09:21 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Just think it through......FC could pay some hisec wannabes , or get some of their own volunteers to go to ANY open system in a target's space...... I can see where a little bit of effort at the right time could cause the other guy to work a LOT harder getting rid of it. Whack-a-mole anyone?

Hmm. hisec wannabees, or "their own volunteers". So, renters?

Polo Marco wrote:
Some people who trained pilots for the better part of a year to ride a HORSE might not be happy getting stuck with a TURTLE.

Ya think?

I'm surprised there's not a petition or thread around about being able to untrain cap skills for an SP refund.

Caps and supercaps aren't useless, and they won't be useless after this change either. There's no reason to give a SP refund.

Polo Marco wrote:
No doubt. Depending on which dev you listen to they've as much as said they are trolling the forums for good ideas. They've let these threads run on and on - trolls, R/Qs and all. But I also see dodging negative criticism and being secretive about the 'big plan' and that worries me. So here I sit.

So here you sit, demanding that CCP dump the changes they're looking at, which will help in making the eve universe a bigger place, and demanding that they be dropped in favor of your changes which are easily circumvented and would just encourage an even MORE grindy renter system than before.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1159 - 2014-10-13 19:22:32 UTC
If the capital is expected to travel through gates, it should have special abilities to make it so that gate travel was not extremely risky and thus suicide.

1) Warp bubble immunity is a "must" otherwise the cap will be slow boating at around 50m/s through a bubble with extreme vulnerabilities to being bumped. +2-4 to warp core strength is also a really good idea and makes sense because it is such a big ship, otherwise it will be insta-locked by the first interceptor to land on grid before the 30-60s cap align time for warping out.

2) After getting tackled by a cheap interceptor, the capital ship would then have to spend 30-60s just to lock the little ship up. The carrier would require another 30-60s more to get the drones on it. 1-2 min of being tackled is plenty of time for an enemy fleet to come in from beyond scout range and take over the tackle. Non-carrier capitals won't even be able to track the interceptor.

3) Capitals should be made immune to bumping. It is absurd that a little ship could possibly get enough momentum to even remotely affect the momentum of a capital (if we completely abandoned physics, then nothing would make any sense at all).

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1160 - 2014-10-13 19:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Andy Landen wrote:
If the capital is expected to travel through gates, it should have special abilities to make it so that gate travel was not extremely risky and thus suicide.

1) Warp bubble immunity is a "must" otherwise the cap will be slow boating at around 50m/s through a bubble with extreme vulnerabilities to being bumped. +2-4 to warp core strength is also a really good idea and makes sense because it is such a big ship, otherwise it will be insta-locked by the first interceptor to land on grid before the 30-60s cap align time for warping out.

You do realize that being able to take gates is a massive buff to capitals, right?

Also, these interceptors should be easy to get rid of by utilizing a subcap support fleet. Capitals aren't supposed to be used without support.

Andy Landen wrote:
2) After getting tackled by a cheap interceptor, the capital ship would then have to spend 30-60s just to lock the little ship up. The carrier would require another 30-60s more to get the drones on it. 1-2 min of being tackled is plenty of time for an enemy fleet to come in from beyond scout range and take over the tackle. Non-carrier capitals won't even be able to track the interceptor.

Capitals should not be used alone, and should not be without a support fleet. Don't deploy capitals unless you're sure you can get to where you're going, or are willing to fight for the right to get to where you're going by utilizing subcaps.