These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#1481 - 2014-10-18 11:20:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Danikov
Accepting that these changes are coming in their current form plus or minus minor tweaks, why are they being introduced with such severe figures? Why not introduce the mechanic with minor penalties and grow them iteratively on a week by week basis until you find a level that seems right, rather than making such a massive change? At least that way you give players a chance to adjust and ease into them slowly, rather than having the world turn from day to night over the course of a single patch.

On that note, have you ever thought about having WH-esque system effects in k-space that affect jump ranges or fatigue? You could always fluff it as galactic weather of some sort and arbitrarily have some regions be easier to harder to jump through, according to the 'weather'. Given good 'weather' in the right places, you might just see fights reminiscent of pre-Phoebe EVE on a rarer basis, but on the whole you could make them a lot less common as intended.

Yeah... I just want to see an EVE Galactic weather channel ;)
Pic'n dor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1482 - 2014-10-18 11:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Pic'n dor
I see in the new medical clone system taht you can be self destruct and setup you medical in your school system but only one systeme is proposed whereas each school got stations in several system. Is that intended ?


Can you confirm that it impossible now to setup a medical clone in a non medical stations ? Is there any plan to add some medical facilities to some NPC stations ?

COUCOU TOUCHE TOUCHE

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1483 - 2014-10-18 14:00:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Yup, nothing's final yet, and that's one of the things where there's clearly good arguments on both sides and we're happy to reconsider.

Vincent Athena wrote:
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.


Generally speaking, yes, I think we would prefer to limit that as well if it were possible without severely mangling other big-picture goals. There's no obvious way to do so that I can see, though.

All that said, on the wider topic of capital alts, if alliances have the capability to fund many new capital alts, what's the reason they're not already doing so in the current system?

Byson1 wrote:
Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it.


Primary goals:
- Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out.
- Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative
- Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences
- Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.

The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way.

Lord TGR wrote:
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.


Entirely possible, and it's an opinion you share with several other designers ;) Happy to take the bet if you're coming to fanfest, it's going to be interesting to see how the cards fall on this one!

Viaharo Musa wrote:
So ill ask this question of the CCP dev's, How do you envision the solo capital pilot being able to move around. Say from low sec to stain?? or low sec to ore space.


So there's two parts to this:
- First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work. That's not to say we think solo players shouldn't have them, or that we're in any way actively working against such things, but rather that just we recognize players will do all kinds of interesting things with the tools we give them, but we don't feel beholden to automatically supporting all these sorts of use cases when making adjustments.
- Secondly, if you're looking for suggestions, I'd propose either a) figuring out where your necessary cyno points are likely to be and negotiating for transit rights with whoever controls those systems, or b) find some other people to work with to try and solve your problem together (moving capitals in a group and getting a couple of scouts in nearby systems so you can move the fleet with low risk). Nullsec is deliberately set up to make working with other people the optimal solution to as many of its problems as possible :)

Pic'n dor wrote:
I see in the new medical clone system taht you can be self destruct and setup you medical in your school system but only one systeme is proposed whereas each school got stations in several system. Is that intended ?


Can you confirm that it impossible now to setup a medical clone in a non medical stations ? Is there any plan to add some medical facilities to some NPC stations ?


Yup, intended that there's only one station you can always hop back to - it's not a movement tool, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card

No changes to medical clones being set in non-medical stations, you will still be able to do that.

[quote=Jessica Danikov]Accepting that these changes are coming in their current form plus or minus minor tweaks, why are they being introduced with such severe figures? Why not introduce the mechanic with minor penalties and grow them iteratively on a week by week basis until you find a level that seems right,...
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1484 - 2014-10-18 15:17:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Polo Marco
Previous misquote removed ... My apologies.

Byson1 wrote:
Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Primary goals:
- Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out.
- Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative
- Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences
- Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.

The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way.


Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.

Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.

My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'

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

Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1485 - 2014-10-18 15:40:40 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:

Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.

Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.

My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'


I dont have any exact figures about the populations in null and everywhere else - but stating that THE players got lost in this doesnt really hit it. If we ignore the Provi/Hero fights for a moment - where is the conflict? There is none and if there is one it gets a massive battle like B-R right away. Those battles have nothing really appealing besides for those who are in the front line of it - looking at some footage a day after is usually the better choice because the gain of it is usually just a massive destruction of some force with no bigger consequences anywhere else.

These changes will not take that away from you - it just makes it less obvious to happen constantly. So stating that we players are losing playstyle choices is a really wrong assessment. Many players like me actually see the complete opposite - that we get playchoices BACK that where taken away. Eve was always so much more than just destroying things - that was and will always be one of the core parts but its not the most important one. It is situated beside other core parts - its equal to others. Fleets like spectre, RvB Ganked and others exist because of the lack of constant skirmishes and conflicts - and even if they are great fun it is really wrong that we need something like it in the first place. The upcoming changes gives many players the chance to be part of regular conflicts again on a smaller scale because of travel restrictions for capitals. It gives players who want constant fighting a chance back to become a loyal member of a corporation/alliance again and get regular fights - instead of leaving to a NPC corp and joining free roams to cater that need.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Tikitina
Doomheim
#1486 - 2014-10-18 15:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
.......

They both need doing, but in this order there's a chance of something interesting happening in-game over the Christmas holiday, rather than not having any changes hit before probably January.

Sov changes incoming in January!


Developed in series rather than in parallel, sorry :)

...Go back to twice yearly releases that can be written in parallel and tested as a release rather than rolling releases that have no time for testing and player feedback



I don't think so. Around two years content seems to have been released since they started a more Agile approach. And yes people still get to test it.

To be honest, I think you are playing the doom and gloom approach to try and get what you want.
It wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't already been played to death on these forums.

One day that may turn out to be true, but too many have cried wolf with theories that never panned out.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1487 - 2014-10-18 15:56:52 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by.....


I'm not sure that's wise, relegating us to 'asset' status. But this is why we have dialogue. to assist understanding. It makes my comprehension of your next answer a bit clearer.

[quote snip]

Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.

Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.

My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'


To the first point... I didn't say that, that was a player that you've quoted there and attached my name to. Please re-check your quotes and don't misattribute things to developers that were said by players, thanks.

To the second, I don't know where you're getting the idea that this isn't player-focused from. All of those points are working towards the root value of "making the game more interesting for players". We're directly trying to constrain player activity in certain ways, yes, but with the goal of eliminating certain clearly-optimal strategies to allow more diversity and allow more players to play their favored playstyle rather than being forced into an optimal style that they do not enjoy.

(And no, "deal[ing] with them individually" in the way you seem to be suggesting, we absolutely cannot be targeting particular players or groups simply because we wish their behavior to change. That might fly in the context of a PnP RPG but it is not something we - or the playerbase at large - is prepared to countenance.)
Tikitina
Doomheim
#1488 - 2014-10-18 16:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikitina
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by.....


I'm not sure that's wise, relegating us to 'asset' status. But this is why we have dialogue. to assist understanding. It makes my comprehension of your next answer a bit clearer.

Byson1 wrote:
Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Primary goals:
- Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out.
- Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative
- Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences
- Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.

The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way.


Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.

Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.

My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'


You seem to ignore all the new play style choices this appears to offer. Less occurrences of massive groups ROFL-stomping on anything that thinks of deploying a capital means that there will be a lot more smaller fights going on.

You seem to ignore all the possible positives of this change and overly amplify any possible negatives.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1489 - 2014-10-18 16:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Wrong quote
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1490 - 2014-10-18 16:59:41 UTC
is this going to be it for caps for now, or are they going to get their combat abilities and slippery evasiveness looked at?
Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1491 - 2014-10-18 17:15:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

To the first point... I didn't say that, that was a player that you've quoted there and attached my name to. Please re-check your quotes and don't misattribute things to developers that were said by players, thanks.


Bleah.. my bad... I' re-edit that.. sorry.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
To the second, I don't know where you're getting the idea that this isn't player-focused from. All of those points are working towards the root value of "making the game more interesting for players". We're directly trying to constrain player activity in certain ways, yes, but with the goal of eliminating certain clearly-optimal strategies to allow more diversity and allow more players to play their favored playstyle rather than being forced into an optimal style that they do not enjoy.

(And no, "deal[ing] with them individually" in the way you seem to be suggesting, we absolutely cannot be targeting particular players or groups simply because we wish their behavior to change. That might fly in the context of a PnP RPG but it is not something we - or the playerbase at large - is prepared to countenance.)


Lord TGR has pointed out, and I tend to agree with him that the main culprit here is the sov system, which allows this top heavy political impasse. Polo here works mainly in hisec, but my null alts are frankly bored with what's on the PVP menu these days. Don't get me wrong, change is needed. Much player time is invested outside of fleet activity - ships must be built so that we can blow them up :). PVP rarely pays the bills and can easily leave you in the hole. Movement expedites fun in the game and as such any drag on movement must also impact the fun. As to what the playerbase is prepared to countenance I think we can both speculate till we are blue. They will do as they will do.

In terms of game style and vision, it seems odd to me to constrain fleet movement to the point where optimal strategies would resemble those of Napoleon more than Nimitz. No game breaker here, but this is, after all, supposed to be the future. Regardless of the method, once the will to project power fails, power projection will fail, But it should always have the ability to pop up again later in the hands of fresh users. Mobility does not equal invincibility. We have seen it in history. We have seen it in Eve.

Like the best of the high powered end player content in games everywhere, Eve capitals are defined as much by their concept as their effect. Their massive power is offset by their vulnerabilities. Like Superman and kryptonite, their inability to take regular gates has both defined them and humbled them. Giving them the ability to take gates as a replacement for jump drives removes a critical stricture upon their power. Don't get me wrong, none of us will be happy now unless this is tried, but that old Gamemaster's voice in my mind is telling me it should be approached slowly and introduced all by itself .

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

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1492 - 2014-10-18 17:21:08 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Querns wrote:
Has any thought been given to trading the Rorqual's drone damage bonus for a 10LY range?


Yup, nothing's final yet, and that's one of the things where there's clearly good arguments on both sides and we're happy to reconsider.


What about replacing the drone bonus with +20% jump range per level? Might make Capital Industrial Ships worth training :)
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
The Celestial Empire
#1493 - 2014-10-18 17:36:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Easthir Ravin
Is CCP anti-EVE? They show an awesome video of a massive effort to take down a player built gate at FANFEST. An undertaking that is supposed to encompass EVE / DUST / VALKYRIE. Yet as stated from CCP Grayscale they are actively trying to dismantle the social groups that would make such an undertaking possible.

Seems counter productive.

p.s. Thank you for making my Carrier only good for ratting. I hope to make tons of ISK with it as it will be useful for little else.

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1494 - 2014-10-18 17:38:24 UTC
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

To the first point... I didn't say that, that was a player that you've quoted there and attached my name to. Please re-check your quotes and don't misattribute things to developers that were said by players, thanks.


Bleah.. my bad... I' re-edit that.. sorry.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
To the second, I don't know where you're getting the idea that this isn't player-focused from. All of those points are working towards the root value of "making the game more interesting for players". We're directly trying to constrain player activity in certain ways, yes, but with the goal of eliminating certain clearly-optimal strategies to allow more diversity and allow more players to play their favored playstyle rather than being forced into an optimal style that they do not enjoy.

(And no, "deal[ing] with them individually" in the way you seem to be suggesting, we absolutely cannot be targeting particular players or groups simply because we wish their behavior to change. That might fly in the context of a PnP RPG but it is not something we - or the playerbase at large - is prepared to countenance.)


Lord TGR has pointed out, and I tend to agree with him that the main culprit here is the sov system, which allows this top heavy political impasse. Polo here works mainly in hisec, but my null alts are frankly bored with what's on the PVP menu these days. Don't get me wrong, change is needed. Much player time is invested outside of fleet activity - ships must be built so that we can blow them up :). PVP rarely pays the bills and can easily leave you in the hole. Movement expedites fun in the game and as such any drag on movement must also impact the fun. As to what the playerbase is prepared to countenance I think we can both speculate till we are blue. They will do as they will do.

Actually, you're talking about two different things. The political impasse is indeed due to the sov system, but the jump changes will probably not be impacting that all that much. The thing it will impact, however, is the fact that in fights like B-R or asakai, the people who aren't already in place to jump in on it won't easily be able to piggyback onto the clusterfuck.

It might have some residual political impact because it will allow merc groups to more easily hit a coalition in a backwater system/region to take down something non-sov related without too much fear of 200 supers suddenly appearing in their rear view mirror, but none of these changes stop us from getting another B-R, all it does is require that everyone prepare first (or risk coming late to the party). And that, that is all on the sov system, which is what enables the huge coalitions we've got going right now. That, and the fact that we basically HAVE to sprawl to cover the needs of the playerbase IN those coalitions (well, that and the renters).
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
The Celestial Empire
#1495 - 2014-10-18 17:42:13 UTC
Speaking of balance and risk and reward.... you have spent the last two years nerffing all things dangerous in High-sec. When is the high sec travel nerf or its equivalent, coming?

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"

Polo Marco
Four Winds
#1496 - 2014-10-18 18:54:36 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
It might have some residual political impact because it will allow merc groups to more easily hit a coalition in a backwater system/region to take down something non-sov related without too much fear of 200 supers suddenly appearing in their rear view mirror, but none of these changes stop us from getting another B-R, all it does is require that everyone prepare first (or risk coming late to the party).


I find the whole bipolar attitude to battles like B-R bizarre. On the one hand CCP, Alliance leaders, FCs, and participants all crank up their spin machines, roll out the numbers and the twitch videos, and generally chest beat and carry on about how the greatest battle there ever was just took place in the greatest MMO there ever was. I have never had a pilot in a fight that size and actually feel somewhat deprived. Warts and all.......the chance to be in something like that is much of what makes Eve so unique. These signature events certainly define how the general public sees the game.

Then, BAM! A few days later...... Everyone is moaning and groaning about how bad it is for the game that fights like this can take place. They act like the people who cause these fights and the people who run the game must eat babies and worship Satan when they aren't playing Eve. This has got to end! It's too much!

HELLO ?

Maybe it would be easier to see the vision here if it was a little clearer.

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

Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1497 - 2014-10-18 19:17:42 UTC
Lord TGR wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

To the first point... I didn't say that, that was a player that you've quoted there and attached my name to. Please re-check your quotes and don't misattribute things to developers that were said by players, thanks.


Bleah.. my bad... I' re-edit that.. sorry.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
To the second, I don't know where you're getting the idea that this isn't player-focused from. All of those points are working towards the root value of "making the game more interesting for players". We're directly trying to constrain player activity in certain ways, yes, but with the goal of eliminating certain clearly-optimal strategies to allow more diversity and allow more players to play their favored playstyle rather than being forced into an optimal style that they do not enjoy.

(And no, "deal[ing] with them individually" in the way you seem to be suggesting, we absolutely cannot be targeting particular players or groups simply because we wish their behavior to change. That might fly in the context of a PnP RPG but it is not something we - or the playerbase at large - is prepared to countenance.)


Lord TGR has pointed out, and I tend to agree with him that the main culprit here is the sov system, which allows this top heavy political impasse. Polo here works mainly in hisec, but my null alts are frankly bored with what's on the PVP menu these days. Don't get me wrong, change is needed. Much player time is invested outside of fleet activity - ships must be built so that we can blow them up :). PVP rarely pays the bills and can easily leave you in the hole. Movement expedites fun in the game and as such any drag on movement must also impact the fun. As to what the playerbase is prepared to countenance I think we can both speculate till we are blue. They will do as they will do.

Actually, you're talking about two different things. The political impasse is indeed due to the sov system, but the jump changes will probably not be impacting that all that much. The thing it will impact, however, is the fact that in fights like B-R or asakai, the people who aren't already in place to jump in on it won't easily be able to piggyback onto the clusterfuck.

It might have some residual political impact because it will allow merc groups to more easily hit a coalition in a backwater system/region to take down something non-sov related without too much fear of 200 supers suddenly appearing in their rear view mirror, but none of these changes stop us from getting another B-R, all it does is require that everyone prepare first (or risk coming late to the party). And that, that is all on the sov system, which is what enables the huge coalitions we've got going right now. That, and the fact that we basically HAVE to sprawl to cover the needs of the playerbase IN those coalitions (well, that and the renters).


Its true you might not have huge cap fights but what's going to stop sub caps? You'll more likely have huge sub cap fleets.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1498 - 2014-10-18 19:21:35 UTC
Tikitina wrote:
Polo Marco wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by.....


I'm not sure that's wise, relegating us to 'asset' status. But this is why we have dialogue. to assist understanding. It makes my comprehension of your next answer a bit clearer.

Byson1 wrote:
Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Primary goals:
- Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out.
- Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game

Secondary goals:
- Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative
- Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences
- Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.

The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way.


Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.

Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.

My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'


You seem to ignore all the new play style choices this appears to offer. Less occurrences of massive groups ROFL-stomping on anything that thinks of deploying a capital means that there will be a lot more smaller fights going on.

You seem to ignore all the possible positives of this change and overly amplify any possible negatives.


My worry is that it will still be too easy to project power for the largest and best organized groups - in other words that we will take bitter medicine and still have the disease.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1499 - 2014-10-18 19:44:25 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
In order to counter a capital being caught in a bubble at a gate and having to slow boat through it, I propose warp bubble immunity just like for interceptors and T3s. The capital ship's drives are certainly much larger and more advanced.

In order to counter sub cap ships being able to quickly target, bump and hold a capital on a gate, I propose that capital ships get +2 to warp core strength just like blockade runner transport ships. Their warp drives are certainly much larger and more powerful.

Fighters are practically cruisers with pilots in them and therefore should be given a warp disruption point each to assist a carrier being held down and bumped on a gate by many frigates or cruisers. Same for fighter bombers.


The only problem with that is that turning capitals into overgrown ceptors is contrary to part of the purpose of these changes, and removes the added risk to them that CCP wants in the mix.

Its almost like having your old work car that you drive every day (sub caps and such) and then the nice car that sits in the garage waiting on a special occasion (cap combat ships) in order to be driven.

CCP wants folks to use those "special" cars in a more strategic manner, not as the current ho-hum everyday vehicle.
proposing "adjustments" to the ships that nullify the entire point of the changes CCP is making will only serve to bolster the current status quo which CCP has already stated they wish to change.

...
o/
Celly Smunt

It appears that your point is that the changes are intended to make it much more dangerous to take capital ships out of the station garage for either assault or evac. Now we have to evac our capitals before the change so that they won't be stranded during emergency evac operations later on. Null sec becomes safer for sub-capital ships and even safer for the greatly buffed Black Ops. I guess the point is to create a safer null sec for low skill pilots.

So the point is then to punish those who dedicated massive training time to capital ships and to discourage the use of capital ships for anything. The point is to turn null sec into easy mode for subcaps. I am not interested in easy mode null sec for subcaps! I have lost interest already and I blame CCP for threatening to nullify the value of my cap ship skills training time.

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

Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1500 - 2014-10-18 19:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
Andy Landen wrote:
It appears that your point is that the changes are intended to make it much more dangerous to take capital ships out of the station garage for either assault or evac. Now we have to evac our capitals before the change so that they won't be stranded during emergency evac operations later on. Null sec becomes safer for sub-capital ships and even safer for the greatly buffed Black Ops. I guess the point is to create a safer null sec for low skill pilots.

So the point is then to punish those who dedicated massive training time to capital ships and to discourage the use of capital ships for anything. The point is to turn null sec into easy mode for subcaps. I am not interested in easy mode null sec for subcaps! I have lost interest already and I blame CCP for threatening to nullify the value of my cap ship skills training time.

Nothing's stopping you from using caps on field like you've done before, you just can't arrive from the complete opposite side of the map anymore, and there'll be a few chokepoints you'll have to go through first.

I would've thought someone who's been playing since at least 2009 should appreciate the added depth this change adds to the strategic choices you make, AND the added strategic value deploying caps (with subcap support, obviously) against a subcap foe would yield, especially if you know their cap fleet is way out of range. But I guess not. C'est la vie.