These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yuri Fedorov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#121 - 2014-10-09 19:00:19 UTC
I love you
Nethras
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2014-10-09 19:00:54 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Rorquals will stay at 5LY/90%


Is there a reason that Rorquals don't get the same 10LY range as JFs? Rorquals are used just as much for logistics as JFs, especially because their actual intended use isn't really...useful.


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 :)


If you're worried about combat capabilities of Rorquals if they have 10LY range and the drone bonus, and for some reason think the drone bonus is more important, then remove the capital remote shield booster range bonus. Carrier blobs are as strong as they are due to being able to keep each other alive, so drastically reducing the ability of a Rorqual fleet to rep each other would even do more to prevent fleet use than removing the drone bonus - half as much damage would just mean you kill things slower while still not dying, or alternatively that you just need twice as many Rorquals.

Or for a less drastic change if that's not what you're worried about, make the drone bonus not apply to sentry drones. Sentries aren't all that useful for removing tackle in self defense, but are critical in mid to large scale combat since they don't have travel time and coordinate better with each other than any other type of drone.

Either way, fueling towers is absolutely a huge part of logistics, and is being hit much harder than JF supply lines - the bulk of JF use is on set routes repeatedly run by small numbers of people, where enough isk and preparation can circumvent jump fatigue entirely. That's much less viable when trying to fuel every tower and jump bridge whenever needed.
Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#123 - 2014-10-09 19:01:19 UTC
Tri Vetra wrote:
I guess there won't be any "freighter convoys" after all.


As is apparent from the OP, the lesser nerf to JFs is a stop-gap.

Quote:
As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.


They plan on nerfing logistics right back down once they can ensure that local "farm and field" techniques of fueling a war machine are actually doable.

+1
dhunpael
#124 - 2014-10-09 19:01:21 UTC
Now if the dev's could react as much and as fast in the wormhole section..

That would be all
Zverofaust
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-10-09 19:01:45 UTC
TO BE GHONEST i dont think anything that uses a black ops style of jump should incur any fatigue really. its not like blops are a menace on the state of the game, and their entire stated purpose is to be able to move around with stealth and speed. so imho, using a covert cyno should incur no penalty. except bombers, matybe.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#126 - 2014-10-09 19:02:47 UTC
I'm still waiting for an update on why the Rorqual 20% drone bonus is more important than it's daily use, as a mini-jump freighter or combat pos dropper.
Etrei Kordisin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2014-10-09 19:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Etrei Kordisin
Marlona Sky wrote:
Maybe these changes will accomplish something to break up the stagnation of null. With this watered down version it is hard to tell.


Pretty much.

I'm pretty disheartened to see the original idea "nerfed" in such a way. Logistics shouldn't be easy, the fact that no alliances in wars actually run out of ships goes to show very simply that logistics are far too easy.

Attrition should be a thing. Being reduced to flying smaller/weaker ships due to lack of supplies should be a thing.

Please, don't un-nerf bridges for anything, and don't give JFs 10LY. One of the things that made this awesome was the fact that moving things around would actually cause an element of risk; taking it back to 10LY eliminates that. With this, you're removing the best part of the changes.
JEFFRAIDER
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2014-10-09 19:05:12 UTC
Gwailar wrote:
Shilalasar wrote:
So instead of really nefing nullseclogistics and adding a bit of risk to it, it is now instead of 5 minutes you need 15-25 to run to highsec and 1-3 more cynos. So no change there overall.
I guess crying works if you are in nullsec...


Did you not read what he said?

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


They want industry in null to supply null more than JFs from Jita.
But right now there is no industry in null, so nerfing JFs to the ground would bring everything to a grinding halt.
After this first set of changes is implemented, they will make further changes that will boost industry in null while nerfing the ability to ship in all your stuff from Jita.

Give them some time. Jeez.


I think u r very smart and cool

Lol
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#129 - 2014-10-09 19:05:54 UTC
Black Ops changes are cool.

JF thing is probably a necessary for now.

Any word on carrier SMA for logistics purposes?

I've heard the cap on jump delay will be 30 days. Should probably a bit higher 45/60 days. A month is a long time but it's not a LONG time.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Techno Model
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2014-10-09 19:06:26 UTC
Etrei Kordisin wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Maybe these changes will accomplish something to break up the stagnation of null. With this watered down version it is hard to tell.


Pretty much.

I'm pretty disheartened to see the original idea "nerfed" in such a way. Logistics shouldn't be easy, the fact that no alliances in wars actually run out of ships goes to show very simply that logistics are far too easy.

Attrition should be a thing. Being reduced to flying smaller/weaker ships due to lack of supplies should be a thing.

Please, don't un-nerf bridges for anything, and don't give JFs 10LY. One of the things that made this awesome was the fact that moving things around would actually cause an element of risk; taking it back to 10LY eliminates that.


It will protect PL's renter empire while allowing "elite pvp" to continue dropping black ops onto drakes. PLoebe update is pretty much confirmed now.
JEFFRAIDER
State War Academy
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-10-09 19:06:27 UTC
Techno Model wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
David Magnus wrote:
These do address some of the bigger concerns, thanks for taking the time to post about these!
Have there been changes to death-clone camping, or did I miss that in a different thread?


Death clone camping is handled by the new medical clone changes that are being implemented right now. The short version is that you'll always be able to intentionally revoke your clone contract somewhere and have it reset to your rookie system.

wait what, where is this


On Nullarbor's computer, currently.

Also, to everyone who was wondering whether or not I listened, I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. Whether or not I agreed with the concerns was an open question, but I hope it was obvious from my posting that I was paying attention!


Lets be totally honest Greyscale, you will never listen to the majority of posters on these forums. CCP does not work that way, its a proven fact after 12 years. What you will listen to is the Marketing and Financial guys at CCP when they start screaming about subscription numbers. Personally, I have 5 accounts that were "utility" cynos and hobojammers that will now be killed off (no point asking for stuff its all been put onto active accounts.) I am a casual pubbie ... and that is 5 accounts dead.

EVE may not be dying, but you are slowly hammering the nails into the coffin lid.


are you okay :)
Auron Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2014-10-09 19:06:32 UTC
Get ready for titan roams? is it possible to dock supers??? please please....
X Gallentius
Easy Eight
#133 - 2014-10-09 19:06:44 UTC
Resubbing my 27 separate hauling accounts! You are the BEST CCP! /lolpost

Ocih
Space Mermaids
Somethin Awfull Forums
#134 - 2014-10-09 19:08:57 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Ocih wrote:
Rather than fatigue, we have to 'lock on' to our cyno and scan res determines how long it takes us to do it. Using our jump drives and the range they have is determined by a long range locking ability. It's a timer just like the one we have now but it's an up front timer, not a back door timer and would go much further in preventing ninja Capitals.


This would not work as intended; the cooldown timer after each jump is supposed to get worse with each jump; back-door timers are inevitable and necessary. Using them to ninja their way into a fight isn't inherently bad, just the frequency and superiority of that approach.



I was actually thinking of the fight in progress when I thought this up. Oops

As a capital fleet locks their escape cyno, I drop a remote ECM from a Super carrier and watch them burn.

I'm evil that way...
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#135 - 2014-10-09 19:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Overlord Invictus
So CCP Greyscale...

Would you agree or disagree that this 'fix' (and i hate to call it that) wont actually fix nullsec, but just postpone its current flaws until further down the line?

id imagine this fix will limit the range at which people can engage in pvp away from home fairly severely. and stop the proliferation of cap and supercap blobs from dominating sovereignty control across friendly space. But whats to stop that from occurring at a micro level as opposed to the macro level? Surely the only thing is the concentration of capitals and supercapitals in null sec.

what you propose is to move the nullsec game back 5 or so years without 'really' changing much fundamentally. what we have now will be what we have in 5 years time when every alliance in nullsec has multiple capital and supercapital alts and fights like b-r5 occur more often in multiple locations on the map.

we will still have big super blob > smaller super blob. meaning new alliances in null wont get a look in again. And this doesnt resolve the 2nd most important reason for you to be producing this change as mentioned below:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Big fights are cool, but they’re crowding out more accessible and more frequent smaller ones.


just postponing it. so explain to me how this is indeed a 'fix' and not just a bandaid for a fundamentally flawed system?
Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#136 - 2014-10-09 19:09:24 UTC
Zverofaust wrote:
TO BE GHONEST i dont think anything that uses a black ops style of jump should incur any fatigue really. its not like blops are a menace on the state of the game, and their entire stated purpose is to be able to move around with stealth and speed. so imho, using a covert cyno should incur no penalty. except bombers, matybe.


I would think that CCP would want to limit the ability of massive fleets of T3s to be able to teleport around re-enforcing things.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-10-09 19:09:34 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Resubbing my 27 separate hauling accounts! You are the BEST CCP! /lolpost

So THAT'S how you move all those Derptronz!!!!

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Zip Slings
The Picket Line
#138 - 2014-10-09 19:10:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zip Slings
Overlord Invictus wrote:
So CCP Greyscale...

Would you agree or disagree that this 'fix' (and i hate to call it that) wont actually fix nullsec, but just postpone its current flaws until further down the line?

id imagine this fix will limit the range at which people can engage in pvp away from home fairly severely. and stop the proliferation of cap and supercap blobs from dominating sovereignty control across friendly space. But whats to stop that from occurring at a micro level as opposed to the macro level? Surely the only thing is the concentration of capitals and supercapitals in null sec.

what you propose is to move the nullsec game back 5 or so years without 'really' changing much fundamentally. what we have now will be what we have in 5 years time when every alliance in nullsec has multiple capital and supercapital alts and fights like b-r5 occur more often in multiple locations on the map.

we will still have big super blob > smaller super blob. meaning new alliances in null wont get a look in again. And this doesnt resolve the 2nd most important reason for you to be producing this change as mentioned below:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Big fights are cool, but they’re crowding out more accessible and more frequent smaller ones.


just postponing it. so explain to me how this is indeed a 'fix' and not just a bandaid for a fundamentally flawed system?


More changes incoming. This is part 1.
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#139 - 2014-10-09 19:10:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
You know guys, when a horse kicks or bites you don't cut off its hooves or pull its teeth. You modify either the behavior of the horse or the behavior of the person using it. Nullsec sov, politics and combat methods have everything to do with what motivates the users of these ships and not the ships themselves. You hobble the horse, he's not worth his feed so its off to the auction block with him. You give the rider gloves and a shinguard and he never learns how to manage the animal. You are treating the symptoms not the problem.


Why don't you try this first:


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


Fixing a clock is easier to do with a screwdriver than a hammer..............


I don't know about your specific idea (it doesn't seem to take Alt alliances into account for instance), +1 for the above bolded part. Sometimes people think they can change 'the environment' (in this case, specific game mechanics) to change behavior when in fact changing the environment can MAGNIFY the unwanted behaviors in the 1st place. This is why Dominion and later changes (like the Anom nerf) made things worse rather than better.

(real world example from my own country, we put people in prison to "rehabilitate" them but what we end up with is an UN-rehabilitated super criminal who just graduated from tax payer funded super Crime university lol, if we'd used a more 'community' based approach we might have ended up with a less skilled criminal at least lol).

The way forward is to look at what makes people tick and give them tools to make them able to tick along IMO.



My "idea" is not purposed to fix anything. It's purposed to render very large power blocs untenable. Alt alliances, or any other form of local device or diplomacy must then be used to regulate an area's political/military environment. This will require REAL human relations, conflict resolution, and player interaction on a much greater scale than the megacorps allow.

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

Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#140 - 2014-10-09 19:10:47 UTC
Sensible changes. Happy you listened to the voices of sensible moderation. Kick the hell out of force projection if that is what you really want to do, but no point is slaughtering the logistics grind on the same altar.

For all those getting Al Sharpton-angry that CCP reversed course a bit by not hitting logistics with the same hammer intended to pound combat capital projection into the ground, oh well. You need to engage the part of your brain that isn;t entirely focused on how you can kill a random dude and call it PVP. Bigger issues were at play. The potential damage to import/export and markets in general wasn't necessary in order to deal with force projection. Maybe someday it can all be included, but until CCP makes dramatic changes in other areas, it just isn't required right now.