These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1401 - 2014-10-17 14:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Dwissi wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
Viaharo Musa wrote:
As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.

Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships.
At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!



That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO



Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement.
If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.



I'm all for caps in HS, but ONLY if they get a suspect flag upon entering. I mean, they're not supposed to be there anymore, so if that were to change.... it would be suspicious..... so a suspect flag (that's a flag not a timer) seems a fair comprimise. It also seems reasonable that if you're arbitrarily dropping their badwidth down to BS levels it only follows that it would be fair and just to drop the EHP down to BS levels also.

Summary:
Advantage - Capitals can move through HS
Drawback- The pilot is flagged with a supect flag
Drone bandwith is reduced to 125
EHP gets capped at 150k


Let's get this done!!


Seriously - not going to happen . Why? Because then all industrialists will start a new threadonaut to get the ability back to produce capitals in high sec again. Intertwined system - remember?

P.S. On second note: Chribba will hate you for becoming a suspect when he undocks the veld-naught ;)


Why you crush my dream of capital pinatas in HS?

The glory to be on the veldnaught km..... I'm getting woozy :P
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1402 - 2014-10-17 14:48:30 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
It's a thing that we would like to revisit again, but one of the key questions that comes up every time is whether we can/want to compete with player-run services in this regard.


I think you should want to. all this stuff where you need to use a third party tool because the in-game ones are a joke by comparison, aren't they an embarassment? something something accessibility something new player retention.


My personal feeling is that on the one hand the game should be playable without relying on out-of-game tools, which is currently only marginally true at best for capital travel, but on the other hand that there's a social cost to essentially shutting down player-run services by out-competing them, and that makes me somewhat uncomfortable, as well as a clear developmental cost to solving a problem that players have already sold.

Are we hitting the right balance, here and elsewhere? No. Jump planning in the client could do with being a lot better. But it's prioritized against other stuff - and both the advanced nature of jump travel and the generally unintuitable nature of jump mechanics mean that this isn't a new-player problem and the accessibility isn't solved just with a jump planner. We'd also need to, eg, let you figure out you need a cyno lit in a nearby system by a player in your fleet, too :)

Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Military leaders sensibly optimize for the largest plausible threat, and the combination of capital proliferation and the lessons learned from the Great War (the one with BoB) led us to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone in nullsec who's not your ally attacks you at the same time". If we could move to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone living within two regions who's not your ally attacks you at the same time", the strategic *need* for cluster-spanning coalitions goes away. The other half of the question is whether in that scenario the *desire* for cluster-spanning coalitions shrinks enough to have that actually happen. We don't strongly anticipate this happening amongst coalition leadership, but we are somewhat hopeful that, over the course of time and supported by other adjustments, the need to keep their combat pilots happy with accessible targets will force their hand.
(Emphasis added)
With all due respect, I feel you've completely underestimated, and misunderstood, the desire side of the need/desire equation. You are correct that when all of nullsec can descend on you in one fell swoop, there is great strategic value in being part of a large coalition. But the other benefit of large coalitions is in having large areas where you can freely roam with relatively reduced risk of encountering a major problem. The bigger your coalition, the bigger the area of space you have to freely operate out of.

This is why hisec is, and will always be, more popular, and densely populated, than nullsec. It's not about income disparity or boredom or looking for fights. It's about the ability to just get up and go somewhere. This is going to be a major factor holding large coalitions together even if you were to remove jump drives entirely.

People like freedom. Big coalitions give people in nullsec more freedom. These travel changes do nothing to address that, and realistically there is nothing that CCP can do to address that because it's human nature.


Underestimated/understood, yes, entirely possible. That's what we're testing here :) For what it's worth, my experiences lead me to believe that supplying combat pilots with worthwhile targets is a core requirement for stable military alliances, but obviously YMMV, and we'll see how it plays out!

As to human nature, sure, but it's not the only thing that's human nature. There's a desire to get bigger, but there are other desires (such as, in our context, the desire to do interesting things in the game) that are also strong, and if we can set one against the other, something has to give.

Polo Marco wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale]We're broadly of the opinion that easy teleportation is bad in all its form, which is why we're making a fairly far-reaching change. The primary focus is combat deployment, but when it's easier to include rather than exclude other things we'd like to tone down anyway, our default position is to spread wide.

If there are use cases other than those already addressed by JFs, clone changes etc that you feel are unjustifiably hit by this change, please explain them concisely! Giving alternate solutions doesn't help our decision-making if we don't understand what problems you're trying to address.

As to backup plans... strictly, no, because we don't have "plans", we have planning, which these days assumes that we will have need for changes, reworks and so on. As we've said in a way that I hope has been pretty consistent, we want to hit our goals, and we'll keep reevaluating and iterating until we decide we're close enough. If we find we're in a dead end, we'll look for another route.


This idea I have been bouncing around, and still am... when I have time, seems to address the large entity projection issue with much less collateral effect than across the board range nerfs:




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

All existing ship Jump ranges will remain unchanged.

Under this mechanic all ships will be treated EQUALLY.

(There has been input suggesting JFs, Rorqs and Blops be exempted. What do YOU think?)

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.


The JUMP BASE

1) Each pilot must stipulate a JUMP BASE station on his character sheet.

2) A pilot may only use his jump drive within 32ly of this base, and he may not jump...
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1403 - 2014-10-17 14:49:17 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I'm assuming greyscale is still perusing this thread, any plans to introduce modules/rigs affecting the various stats? With drawbacks to match the benefits of course.


Maybe one day, not in the first release.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1404 - 2014-10-17 14:58:50 UTC
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

ALI Virgo
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1405 - 2014-10-17 15:05:35 UTC
[instead of changing how cloaking works for every one why not jut focus on bombers and how bombs work

What if bombers can keep cloaking as is but they have to lock a target before launching a bomb.

Lock target launch bomb warp away. If they are warp stabbed fitted it will slow down lock time.

Bombs travels in the direction of locked item . Fire and forget system

You can also increase range of bombs. make them twice as fast and twice the range.

Make bombs lockable so they can goo off pre mature.

A bomber launhes a bomb and a fast lock hits the bomb and bombs damages or kills the bombing ship and bombs. a chain reaction of sorts

A bomb launch from as far as 60 k out . Bombs travel 60 k and then goo off. Any thing can happen to it as it travels Taking 10 seconds to travel that distance. how ever increase it damage distance form 15 to 20. more reward and rick for bombers. A bomb should do more damage to a capital, pos and stations then a battleship. not just max out at 8000


Plenty of time for ships to fight bombers and or warp away if they are prepared.


Also create T 2 bombs that do more damage, higher range and speed
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1406 - 2014-10-17 15:15:37 UTC
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Is it just me or do others also see that Rorquals need to be nerfed?

This gigantic mining ops boat is in every fleet, no matter what and makes all mining barges and exhumers why too strong for the game.

The way the Rorqual adds to the mining madness all over nullsec and now even in lowsec must be stopped.

Yea, yea, I know, e2 is raving over miners and wants stability for Orca boosted mining ops and sounds like a carebear (with guns).

Maybe I am. I have been a carebear for about five years before I changed my mind- oh well someone else changed my stand on pvp in general and after smelling blood the first time it is something you do not want to get rid of.

Anyhow, a tiny bit of 'carebear' still exists and some of my adventures to low or nullsec could not have been done without mining or level 4 highsec missions :P:P:P:P:P:P

Now back to this monstrosity.

The Rorqual and the insane combat abilities that ship has makes miners in all soverentiy based super-mega-tidy fleets unbeatable.

Something must be done.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1407 - 2014-10-17 15:22:45 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Until they start talking about destructible gates and stations etc again, I'd suggest taking that with a grain of salt.


Spoiler alert!!!!

We had those already back in the day. Long story short, to keep their space 'save' from anything that could come along, every downtime the Band of Developers came along and killed the stargates leading to their space.

Now you can make an educated guess why gate now have like 10 billion hp.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Lair Osen
#1408 - 2014-10-17 15:30:51 UTC
Any plans to decrease the duration, or at least the ozone use of cynos, now that we have to use a lot more of them?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#1409 - 2014-10-17 15:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're broadly of the opinion that easy teleportation is bad in all its form, which is why we're making a fairly far-reaching change.

How about the player teleporting about by logging into a prepositioned alt? Do you consider that form of teleportation to be bad? How would you change the game to slow down players changing to a different alt?

Edit: My point:

Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by logging into the right one on the right account.
Nerfing alts, or multiple accounts, will not happen.
Thus we will always have fast projection of power.
Result: Almost all the developer effort spent on this change was wasted, and should have been spent elsewhere.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1410 - 2014-10-17 15:37:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


It's over dude, just let go.


Quitters never win, and winners never quit.



Lol, I didn't say quit. Just telling you to put down the losing hand. The dealer is active and I think the next hand will be much better.



Years ago I was playing with a devout crowd of modelers and wargamers. We were using Empire Rules, the popular Napoleonic system at the time, and the game manual itself strongly suggested the its rules were only guidelines and players should feel free to experiment. Historical realism was very important to us , so when a couple of guys came up with a more geometrical ranging and enfilade system than the one in the book, we agreed to try it, and put together a custom set of combat tables which we used for the next two weekends. We found the realism satisfying, but also discovered that that we had created a time hog. Battles that would take a good part of Saturday afternoon weren't getting finished till late Sunday.Much of the fun was gone. The added realism wasn't worth the hassle, so we went back to the old way.

For us it was easy. But the MMO world runs on an unprecedented scale, and changes on the fly are very difficult. Companies that place happiness for the majority of their players first are far more successful than their counterparts. I'm not suggesting CCP make Eve a WOW-like candy store - the seven year old girls who want their unicorns an fairy godmothers can go elsewhere. But the drastic loss of player freedom and added economic grind the jump changes will bring about will lead to a sharp reverse in the recent empire to null migration trend. We are already already seeing office closings. This is directly counter to some of the stated objectives here. My continuing theme will be that it is much easier not to put yourself in a hole than to have to dig out of it later.

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

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1411 - 2014-10-17 15:40:24 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Is it just me or do others also see that Rorquals need to be nerfed?

This gigantic mining ops boat is in every fleet, no matter what and makes all mining barges and exhumers why too strong for the game.

The way the Rorqual adds to the mining madness all over nullsec and now even in lowsec must be stopped.

Yea, yea, I know, e2 is raving over miners and wants stability for Orca boosted mining ops and sounds like a carebear (with guns).

Maybe I am. I have been a carebear for about five years before I changed my mind- oh well someone else changed my stand on pvp in general and after smelling blood the first time it is something you do not want to get rid of.

Anyhow, a tiny bit of 'carebear' still exists and some of my adventures to low or nullsec could not have been done without mining or level 4 highsec missions :P:P:P:P:P:P

Now back to this monstrosity.

The Rorqual and the insane combat abilities that ship has makes miners in all soverentiy based super-mega-tidy fleets unbeatable.

Something must be done.

This is somewhat offtopic, but I feel it is worth mentioning. I'll probably repost this in the (eventual) rorqual balance thread, especially if the rorqual's bonuses are untouched.

I actually agree with this, broadly -- the rorqual's bonuses roughly double the output of a single miner. When we talk about mining ISK / hr, you always factor in maximum rorqual gang boosts, because you'd be a fool not to do the one thing that doubles your mining output. The third person invited to a mining fleet should always be a rorqual booster; he has the largest effect on your ISK / hr.

I'd like to see mining throughput tilted more strongly towards the mining ship by removing some of the power of the rorqual's boosts and giving it to mining barges instead. This improves isk / hr for the folks who haven't had the better part of a year to train leadership skills and rorqual piloting skills (which is, invariably, the newer players.)

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1412 - 2014-10-17 15:43:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Jump planning in the client could do with being a lot better.


No kidding. How about displaying the distance in light-years to a certain system somewhere in the interface? Anywhere. Preferably on hover or in the info box but buried in 5 submenus would be an improvement. For bonus points, a tool to check the distance between two arbitrary systems.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1413 - 2014-10-17 15:46:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
It's a thing that we would like to revisit again, but one of the key questions that comes up every time is whether we can/want to compete with player-run services in this regard.
....




You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.


Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it.

All i see is a future of goons with roaming capital fleets. All small alliances being assimilated by larger ones, large power centers in null sec where people go join a large alliance where the changes will have minimal impact and will still be able to move their goods.

This is your goal right?
Nadarob Skillane
Nothing Comes To Mind
Snuffed Out
#1414 - 2014-10-17 15:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nadarob Skillane
Jump limiting is based on 2 separate timers - jump cooldown and jump fatigue.
Simply have one of those timers be toon related, and have the other timer be SHIP related.

That way, yes. People can use industrials to jump to the system where their caps are cached a lot quicker, but once there, when entering a cap, they then get the full penalties of jump fatigue applied using a multiplier based on their ship.

1X for industrials
5X for BLOPS
10X for Caps

This way players would have to balance risk Vs reward - 'should I REALLY use my Industrial to jump all the way when I am gonna be screwed in my CAP ship once I get there??'
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1415 - 2014-10-17 15:58:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.


That's because I see many problems in the solution itself. At this point, rather than expecting you to reverse course, my main objective is to make sure that you have been exposed to both my thinking on the matter, and to something that I feel will work. I have done both throughout this thread. You asked for feedback, I felt it was needed and have responded. In the end, it will be the players themselves who will determine the success or failure of your scheme. My only responsibility here is to satisfy myself that I have done everything I could to see that a positive change is effected.


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

Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1416 - 2014-10-17 16:03:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhul Chembull
Querns wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Is it just me or do others also see that Rorquals need to be nerfed?

This gigantic mining ops boat is in every fleet, no matter what and makes all mining barges and exhumers why too strong for the game.

The way the Rorqual adds to the mining madness all over nullsec and now even in lowsec must be stopped.

Yea, yea, I know, e2 is raving over miners and wants stability for Orca boosted mining ops and sounds like a carebear (with guns).

Maybe I am. I have been a carebear for about five years before I changed my mind- oh well someone else changed my stand on pvp in general and after smelling blood the first time it is something you do not want to get rid of.

Anyhow, a tiny bit of 'carebear' still exists and some of my adventures to low or nullsec could not have been done without mining or level 4 highsec missions :P:P:P:P:P:P

Now back to this monstrosity.

The Rorqual and the insane combat abilities that ship has makes miners in all soverentiy based super-mega-tidy fleets unbeatable.

Something must be done.

This is somewhat offtopic, but I feel it is worth mentioning. I'll probably repost this in the (eventual) rorqual balance thread, especially if the rorqual's bonuses are untouched.

I actually agree with this, broadly -- the rorqual's bonuses roughly double the output of a single miner. When we talk about mining ISK / hr, you always factor in maximum rorqual gang boosts, because you'd be a fool not to do the one thing that doubles your mining output. The third person invited to a mining fleet should always be a rorqual booster; he has the largest effect on your ISK / hr.

I'd like to see mining throughput tilted more strongly towards the mining ship by removing some of the power of the rorqual's boosts and giving it to mining barges instead. This improves isk / hr for the folks who haven't had the better part of a year to train leadership skills and rorqual piloting skills (which is, invariably, the newer players.)


Disagree here immensely. The only thing at this point the rorqual does better is boost. This is not without added cost as constant roqual boosts equated to about 1 mil m3 heavy water per month.
Demons Hell
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1417 - 2014-10-17 16:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Demons Hell
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Military leaders sensibly optimize for the largest plausible threat, and the combination of capital proliferation and the lessons learned from the Great War (the one with BoB) led us to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone in nullsec who's not your ally attacks you at the same time". If we could move to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone living within two regions who's not your ally attacks you at the same time", the strategic *need* for cluster-spanning coalitions goes away. The other half of the question is whether in that scenario the *desire* for cluster-spanning coalitions shrinks enough to have that actually happen. We don't strongly anticipate this happening amongst coalition leadership, but we are somewhat hopeful that, over the course of time and supported by other adjustments, the need to keep their combat pilots happy with accessible targets will force their hand.
(Emphasis added)
With all due respect, I feel you've completely underestimated, and misunderstood, the desire side of the need/desire equation. You are correct that when all of nullsec can descend on you in one fell swoop, there is great strategic value in being part of a large coalition. But the other benefit of large coalitions is in having large areas where you can freely roam with relatively reduced risk of encountering a major problem. The bigger your coalition, the bigger the area of space you have to freely operate out of.

This is why hisec is, and will always be, more popular, and densely populated, than nullsec. It's not about income disparity or boredom or looking for fights. It's about the ability to just get up and go somewhere. This is going to be a major factor holding large coalitions together even if you were to remove jump drives entirely.

People like freedom. Big coalitions give people in nullsec more freedom. These travel changes do nothing to address that, and realistically there is nothing that CCP can do to address that because it's human nature.


______________


Questo è un po 'offtopic, ma sento che vale la pena menzionare. Io probabilmente pubblicare questo nella (eventuale) filo balenottera equilibrio, soprattutto se i bonus del balenottere sono intatte. Io in realtà d'accordo con questo, in linea di massima - i bonus del balenottere circa il doppio della potenza di un singolo minatore. Quando si parla di data mining ISK / h, si fattore sempre in spinte al massimo della banda balenottere, perché saresti un pazzo a non fare l'unica cosa che raddoppia la vostra produzione mineraria. La terza persona invitata ad una flotta mineraria dovrebbe sempre essere un richiamo rorqual; egli ha il più grande effetto sul tuo ISK / h. Mi piacerebbe vedere il throughput mineraria inclinato maggiormente verso la nave mineraria rimuovendo parte del potere del aumenta del balenottere e dando al chiatte minerarie invece. Questo migliora ISK / h per le persone che non hanno avuto la parte migliore di un anno per formare capacità di leadership e abilità di pilotaggio balenottere (che è, invariabilmente, i giocatori più recenti.)





Non sono d'accordo qui immensamente. L'unica cosa che a questo punto il rorqual fa meglio è spinta. Questo non è senza costi aggiuntivi come costanti spinte Roqual equiparato ad acqua pesante di circa 1 mil m3 al mese.
____

and a lot of SP in leadership and 3,5 b for ship and skill....



up
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1418 - 2014-10-17 16:12:27 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.


That's because I see many problems in the solution itself. At this point, rather than expecting you to reverse course, my main objective is to make sure that you have been exposed to both my thinking on the matter, and to something that I feel will work. I have done both throughout this thread. You asked for feedback, I felt it was needed and have responded. In the end, it will be the players themselves who will determine the success or failure of your scheme. My only responsibility here is to satisfy myself that I have done everything I could to see that a positive change is effected.



Good call Polo, they like the collateral effects. Shut down industry in null sec by any limiting factor in logistics.... one more step towards pay to win game.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1419 - 2014-10-17 16:28:28 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Rowells wrote:
I'm assuming greyscale is still perusing this thread, any plans to introduce modules/rigs affecting the various stats? With drawbacks to match the benefits of course.


Maybe one day, not in the first release.


So, the new Dominix model will introduced when? Smile

Sorry, I just wanted to ask.

Back to, this is the end - the saving of Eve.

This is not a signature.

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1420 - 2014-10-17 16:33:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Lord TGR wrote:
The reason I'm putting more on the blame for the current equilibrium on the sov system than on jump travel is because every war I've been in the last 4 years has had one, maybe two fronts, and I strongly doubt that the jump travel changes would've had any appreciable impact on the outcompe.

I'm still convinced that the sov system's going to have the biggest bang for the buck, and I'm thinking you could've limited the changes to caps to just the LY they can jump in one go if the sov system had been done first. Having said that I understand why the caps changes are done first, and I'd never thought you guys would go so far as to allow caps to actually take gates.

I can only hope that this is an indication that you guys are prepared to be just as willing to go to extreme measures with the sov system, and come up with something which does make nullsec non-stagnant. I've only been waiting for this day for 3, probably 4 years, since it just became more and more obvious with every war I participated in that we were heading in the direction we were heading in, i.e. a stagnant null where nobody wanted to actually start the next war because it would just mean grinding with bombers and a few large fights where the outcome of 1-2 fights broke the resolution of one of the sides, and the remainder of the region was just swept up by the victor.


We're not prioritizing jump changes just because of their tactical use in wartime, but also because of the strategic realities they create. It's not (just) about creating multi-front wars, it's about undermining the need and desire for large coalitions in the first place. Military leaders sensibly optimize for the largest plausible threat, and the combination of capital proliferation and the lessons learned from the Great War (the one with BoB) led us to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone in nullsec who's not your ally attacks you at the same time". If we could move to a place where the largest plausible threat is "everyone living within two regions who's not your ally attacks you at the same time", the strategic *need* for cluster-spanning coalitions goes away. The other half of the question is whether in that scenario the *desire* for cluster-spanning coalitions shrinks enough to have that actually happen. We don't strongly anticipate this happening amongst coalition leadership, but we are somewhat hopeful that, over the course of time and supported by other adjustments, the need to keep their combat pilots happy with accessible targets will force their hand.

This is all obviously somewhat speculative; we have rough models of behavior that lead us towards this sort of thinking, but the only way to test them is to make these sorts of changes and compare results with predictions - of which we have a reasonably broad range internally, so it'll be interesting to see how things play out :)

I still think you're overestimating the effect the jump changes will have on coalitions, as the sov system still rewards shoving as much EHP and DPS into a system as is possible. While the jump changes do open the door for someone to kick someone in 2 places and force them to actually either split their forces, spend a day travelling or risk losing a system/some other resource, I'm still pretty certain that the real difference in the political environment between/internally in the coalitions will come with the sov changes.

I'm so certain about that that I'd bet a beer on the sov changes bringing about more tumult than the jump changes.