These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1181 - 2014-10-14 05:21:43 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Give them a Tcu with a reward upon completion. The secret of good hisec players is they like isk more than killmails. Imagine that.

I thought you wanted more people to stay out there, not just ninja sov and then **** off back to hisec.

But hey, if you think it'd be ~~awesome~~ gameplay for people to go there, drop a TCU and just run off again and pay sov costs for no real return, then I guess we're on two different planes of existence when it comes to what's ~fun~.

Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Unlike your idea of "grind the renters harder for sov money".

Sounds rather stressful for both sides. Might even cause problems, Ya think?

Sounds like you're more interested in just making nullsec **** to live in, rather than actually make it more fun.

Polo Marco wrote:
Money is the one thing in this game that I am best acquainted with. I see it as requiring far less effort to chuck one out there than to remove it. But that's strictly for hostile intent. If a smaller group moved in next to you and really impressed you with their fighting spirit and general high level of play, could you honestly tell me that you would NEVER relent to deal with them as something other than victims?

Neither of these options are practical under the current system, and I think more player choices and opportunities always improve any game. It's why I like caps in Eve and queens in chess. They make the game much more complex and three dimensional. Better players will thrive and poorer ones will suffer.

These "small groups" which'll "impress you with their fighting spirit" you're thinking of, where would you find them? In hisec? They'll be the ones that'll just drop TCUs in these magically newly vacated systems, pay a sov bill, then do nothing apart from either keep paying the sov bill or watch as the TCU is killed?


Polo Marco wrote:
In a fleet roll, yes, just less mobile. But here again the smaller users get hobbled because their main use for carriers is ship transport and ratting. Ratters whose safe jump outs are compromised by this will have to go back to subcapital ships. T2 ship construction will likely move to hisec, and corp redeployments will be severely compromised. They will get nothing on the plus side to offset this.

Aww shucks, ships designed to be used in conjunction with other people is less usable in solo play, and might actually require strategy in their deployment. How sad.

It's almost like EVE is a strategy game. Can't have that, everyone's supposed to be a winner.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1182 - 2014-10-14 05:58:00 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
If a smaller group moved in next to you and really impressed you with their fighting spirit and general high level of play, could you honestly tell me that you would NEVER relent to deal with them as something other than victims?

These "small groups" which'll "impress you with their fighting spirit" you're thinking of, where would you find them? In hisec? They'll be the ones that'll just drop TCUs in these magically newly vacated systems, pay a sov bill, then do nothing apart from either keep paying the sov bill or watch as the TCU is killed?.

What, are you thinking of some guys like fweddit

We'll absorb them into the big blobbers coalition. Or, you know, they might become vince draken's pets I guess.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1183 - 2014-10-14 06:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Ranger 1 wrote:
Respect your opinion Polo, but I have to say this.

Your analogy of Cap ships being essentially a queen in a game of chess being nerfed to having the same movement capability as a king has a minor flaw.

If you used a direct comparison between EVE and Chess, currently the queen is able to jump several tables over and take a key piece in another game.

With the proposed changes, your queen will still be able to move in any direction from one end of the board to the other, she is just limited to only doing so on her particular board.


You got me thinking....Thinking about SCALE.

As any chess player knows, the 8x8 chessboard has 64 squares, and queens (rooks and bishops also, but in reduced dimensions) have a maximum movement range of 8 squares. Since 8 is the square root of 64, I got to wondering what this would scale to in Eve. After a bit of research I have determined that as best I can tell there are 3196 nullsec systems minus Jovian space, and 817 lowsec systems for a total of 4013. The sqare root of this number is app 63.3 which I will choose to round up to 64 since it's the number that started it all.

So lets look at 2 possible '64' range limitations.

1) 64 systems.. Hmm... No. this will often span the entire map, and no one would go for it.

2) 64ly. This is much more in line with the limits everyone is thinking about so let's use it and start thinking about a workable game mechanic.

A hard cap per time period has already been considered and rejected in favor of one with a cooldown mechanic so it will be discarded.

So what about a tether radius of 64ly?. This would correspond to the real life operational ranges which limit most ships and aircraft today.

Of course every operational range requires a base, and defining this base requires a game mechanic, and after a some of thought this is what came to mind:

The JUMP DRIVE CLONE and the JUMP PILOT IMPLANT.

1) In order to use a jump drive, a pilot must have this special implant installed.

2) This implant may be installed in only ONE clone per pilot.

3) He may not jump further than 64ly from where the jump drive clone is installed.

4) The jump drive clone must be in a STATION and cannot be in a clone bay.

5) The jump drive clone can only be moved ONE TIME PER WEEK.

Much simpler and more elegant (and less server lag maybe) than what is on the table now, Ranger 1, this might answer your most excellent 'scale' argument.

Actual scale and numbers can be tweaked to taste.

Thoughts anyone? C'mon this is what a forum is for. Start shooting at this idea and let's see if it will hold water.. :)

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1184 - 2014-10-14 06:30:44 UTC
I have not checked the entire thread, but has this been a Tippia free thread?

This is not a signature.
Moloney
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1185 - 2014-10-14 07:50:50 UTC
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1186 - 2014-10-14 08:00:02 UTC
Moloney wrote:
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.



CCP want to appear tough, without actually doing so.

This is not a signature.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1187 - 2014-10-14 08:25:47 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Moloney wrote:
Ccp, for the love of God, please grow a pair end ensure that there is n't a bloody obvious workaround to your up coming jump distance changes.

Power blocks are simply going to have taxi alts to move / swap out pilots to move caps.

The change is utterly useless unless it cannot be circumvented with the usual player ingenuity/exploitation.



CCP want to appear tough, without actually doing so.

I'm sure they'll be able to tweak these changes as the environment changes and as they start to see how players adapt to the new sandbox ruleset.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1188 - 2014-10-14 10:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
OK I've thought about my earlier post a bit and want to refine it.

But before I do I'm gonna stick a disclaimer on it. I still feel ship and drive nerfs is the wrong way to approach this power projection issue. I feel that political and concord sov changes could alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec enough to break the current impasse

First of all 64ly was just an arbitrary number, way too large, And I'm gonna HALF it to 32.

The operational range nerf here is intended to REPLACE the single jump range nerf in ALL ships.

Under this all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

Naval ships and aircraft in the real world all operate out of home ports or bases. There is plenty of practical realism here as a premise for this mechanic.

It will require a new implant.



The JUMP DRIVE CLONE and the JUMP PILOT IMPLANT.

1) In order to use a jump drive, a pilot must have this special implant installed.

2) This implant may be installed in only ONE clone per pilot.

3) He may not jump further than 32ly from where the jump drive clone is installed.

4) The jump drive clone must be in a STATION and cannot be in a clone bay.

5) The jump drive clone can only be moved ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS.

The move cooldown and range limit should not be written in stone. They are just my initial ideas.

The mechanic presented here has a number of advantages. It should prevent taxiing and makes transfer clones to move ship assets redundant.

I suggest that it will make it easier on FCs, players, and servers alike, over the existing plans, while sharply interdicting long range projection of power.

The negative effects on small player entities will not be nearly as bad as with the current plan

I also suggest that the troublesome, bumpy and game risky mechanic of allowing caps to use stargates be deferred till a later time, until we see how the new system works. I feel this particular change should get its own release so its effects can be more carefully measured.If left in there would be an issue involving jump capable ships that have gate moved out of range. I suggest in this case no jumping till back within range of the pilot's base.


Don't like this? See a problem?

Shoot at it a few times and see if it will hold water.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1189 - 2014-10-14 10:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Bluesteel
Quote:
Great work CCP, very happy with the proposals now

Quote:
thx EVE gods..


Shocked Woow, they Ripoff an whole Arm and throw back a Hand, very nice at all Question Not really ... Ugh


@CCP

  1. Among the changes to the Rorqual, it is not possible to increase the jump range to 7.5 ly and for that in return to minimize the drones bonus a bid, but not equal to abolish Question
  2. And now, as Capitals can use Jump Bridges again, will it again be possible to set up two Jump Bridges in a solar system Question
Kenhi sama
Project Stealth Squad
The Initiative.
#1190 - 2014-10-14 11:32:26 UTC
With these changes to delays and range, are there ideas or plans to change cyno´s, ie variants with better fuel per time ratio but longer cycle for larger time-windows, or a module with shorter cycle if you need faster repositioning.

Maybe a module/rig influencing the cyno cycle or fuel consumption, but for balance make it (if even) hard to fit on smaller ships, and assure a a significant sacrifice in combat situations for larger vessels.
Amanda Orion
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1191 - 2014-10-14 11:35:50 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:


First of all 64ly was just an arbitrary number, way too large, And I'm gonna HALF it to 32.

The operational range nerf here is intended to REPLACE the single jump range nerf in ALL ships.



Not sure if this is THE answer, but it is certainly a lot better than the insane jump fatigue plan currently being threatened.

Your numbers may need tuning, but at least your whole plan doesn't need to be taken out in the field and shot...
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1192 - 2014-10-14 11:39:48 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
OK I've thought about my earlier post a bit and want to refine it.

But before I do I'm gonna stick a disclaimer on it. I still feel ship and drive nerfs is the wrong way to approach this power projection issue. I feel that political and concord sov changes could alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec enough to break the current impasse

The purpose of the changes isn't to "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec", it's to "make the eve universe big again".

The changes which'll "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec" is going to come next, and it'll apparently be an occupancy-based sov system. I strongly doubt it'll have anything remotely related to sov costs like you're talking about, because that doesn't make any sense, it is easily circumvented and still won't let "small groups" "gain a foothold".
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1193 - 2014-10-14 11:56:07 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
OK I've thought about my earlier post a bit and want to refine it.

But before I do I'm gonna stick a disclaimer on it. I still feel ship and drive nerfs is the wrong way to approach this power projection issue. I feel that political and concord sov changes could alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec enough to break the current impasse

The purpose of the changes isn't to "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec", it's to "make the eve universe big again".

The changes which'll "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec" is going to come next, and it'll apparently be an occupancy-based sov system. I strongly doubt it'll have anything remotely related to sov costs like you're talking about, because that doesn't make any sense, it is easily circumvented and still won't let "small groups" "gain a foothold".



Hmm... well since you've apparently concluded that I'm out to destroy you rather than change the way everyone does business you should also make note of the fact that now I'm trying to cost you an implant slot. Does that make me a dangerous lunatic?

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1194 - 2014-10-14 12:02:22 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
OK I've thought about my earlier post a bit and want to refine it.

But before I do I'm gonna stick a disclaimer on it. I still feel ship and drive nerfs is the wrong way to approach this power projection issue. I feel that political and concord sov changes could alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec enough to break the current impasse

The purpose of the changes isn't to "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec", it's to "make the eve universe big again".

The changes which'll "alter the political structure that sustains the current status quo in nullsec" is going to come next, and it'll apparently be an occupancy-based sov system. I strongly doubt it'll have anything remotely related to sov costs like you're talking about, because that doesn't make any sense, it is easily circumvented and still won't let "small groups" "gain a foothold".



Hmm... well since you've apparently concluded that I'm out to destroy you rather than change the way everyone does business you should also make note of the fact that now I'm trying to cost you an implant slot. Does that make me a dangerous lunatic?

What are you on? I've just been critiquing your idea of taxing us out of systems so "small groups" can "gain a foothold". Don't pretend you're some sort of victim here.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1195 - 2014-10-14 12:09:59 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
What are you on? I've just been critiquing your idea of taxing us out of systems so "small groups" can "gain a foothold". Don't pretend you're some sort of victim here.


No it's just that the terms of 'US' will have to change. The changes it makes in the way you deal with your smaller locals are potentially dangerous, but then again they also offer great opportunities. Either way it will inevitably bring a new fluidity to local space.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1196 - 2014-10-14 12:21:57 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
What are you on? I've just been critiquing your idea of taxing us out of systems so "small groups" can "gain a foothold". Don't pretend you're some sort of victim here.


No it's just that the terms of 'US' will have to change. The changes it makes in the way you deal with your smaller locals are potentially dangerous, but then again they also offer great opportunities. Either way it will inevitably bring a new fluidity to local space.

That's what the occupancy-based sov system'll do all on its own, without a ludicrous scaling tax system at its base (which has been repeatedly suggested, and repeatedly tossed aside as just that, ludicrous and unworkable).
Kaya Vandan
EGD Mining Group
#1197 - 2014-10-14 12:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaya Vandan
Limiting Jump Drive is like driving a car in america ...
You might be able to speed up to more than 250 km/h but law limits you to 55 mph (80 km/h).
I have terminated automatic payment of all my accounts. Let's see what will happen.
Cool down for jump drives maybe ok but for pilots it doesn't make any sense. Is a clone jump possible as a workaround?
If you are lost for e.g. in Delve or elsewhere in deep nullsec you might not be able to play Eve for days? NO!
You can't reach any lowsec with one or two capital jumps? NO!
The consequence is to not play Eve any longer.
Next step might be giving up concorde (because highsec isn't safe) and to make one universe consisting of nullsec space only?

What about new logistic ship type to take down the fatigue?
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1198 - 2014-10-14 12:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tappits
Kaya Vandan wrote:
If you are lost for e.g. in Delve or elsewhere in deep nullsec you might not be able to play Eve for days? NO!
You can't reach any lowsec with one or two capital jumps? NO!


Use gates. you cannot get stuck anywhere. But now there will be a risk to moving caps and not just jumping them station to station.


Something something Man up or HTFU or something. can i have your stuff. (contract your caps that are suck in Deep nullsec to me i will have them all)
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1199 - 2014-10-14 12:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Lord TGR wrote:
That's what the occupancy-based sov system'll do all on its own, without a ludicrous scaling tax system at its base (which has been repeatedly suggested, and repeatedly tossed aside as just that, ludicrous and unworkable).


I had a significant occupancy component in my proposal. I just felt it was too easy grind around all by itself. It actually started off as ALL occupancy but the feedback from some corpies altered my thinking.

Eve teaches hard lessons. Don't blame the game for your own failures.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1200 - 2014-10-14 12:51:59 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
That's what the occupancy-based sov system'll do all on its own, without a ludicrous scaling tax system at its base (which has been repeatedly suggested, and repeatedly tossed aside as just that, ludicrous and unworkable).


I had a significant occupancy component in my proposal. I just felt it was too easy grind around all by itself. It actually started off as ALL occupancy but the feedback from some corpies altered my thinking.

I have no problems with occupancy-based systems (at least in theory, I'll reserve final judgement until CCP's system is revealed/playtested extensively). I do, however, have a problem with "scaling sov costs" systems, because they don't work, aren't sandboxy and just reeks of isk envy.