These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1581 - 2014-10-20 14:48:05 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
But thats what the Rorq was originally intended to be - a mining support vessel. I would rather see hidden belts coming back then further nerfs to it. The Rrorq was and is basically the only high level ship left for a miner to skill up to. Degrading /changing it into yet another hauler/combat vessel would just be wrong.

I'm not against any changes to mining, as it is indeed too dumb. But what CCP present to us now is not a mining revamp, they have some other unrelated goals in mind. So it's reasonable to keep status quo with Rorqual and mining in general for now. And it means they better keep the current roles, which are fulfilled by the Rorq. This roles include, as I mentioned above, POS service for example.



This gives me more reason to put a NO against it. You're asking for a way around fatigue.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1582 - 2014-10-20 14:54:08 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically.

That would be hisec.
Or wormholes, or lowsec.
Because there is already too little initiative to live in null.
Take a look a this table and tell me, why should one mine gneiss instead of kernite?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1583 - 2014-10-20 14:55:32 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
This gives me more reason to put a NO against it. You're asking for a way around fatigue.

I'm asking for less mess with cynos.
Valterra Craven
#1584 - 2014-10-20 14:56:52 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically.

That would be hisec.
Or wormholes, or lowsec.
Because there is already too little initiative to live in null.
Take a look a this table and tell me, why should one mine gneiss instead of kernite?


I'm not saying I don't agree with you that Null mining needs works. But if you feel that way then don't live in null. Seriously we had none of the crap you guys do today in 2006-2007 and it was definitely worth it to live in null back then.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1585 - 2014-10-20 15:07:37 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm not saying I don't agree with you that Null mining needs works. But if you feel that way then don't live in null. Seriously we had none of the crap you guys do today in 2006-2007 and it was definitely worth it to live in null back then.

Since then, there was a long chain of nerfs to nullsec income sources.
Also, the grass was greener.
Valterra Craven
#1586 - 2014-10-20 15:08:43 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'm not saying I don't agree with you that Null mining needs works. But if you feel that way then don't live in null. Seriously we had none of the crap you guys do today in 2006-2007 and it was definitely worth it to live in null back then.

Since then, there was a long chain of nerfs to nullsec income sources.
Also, the grass was greener.


Oh? You mean they nerfed the bounties on belt rats?

If not, then everything you have now is a huge buff.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1587 - 2014-10-20 15:10:46 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically.

That would be hisec.
Or wormholes, or lowsec.
Because there is already too little initiative to live in null.
Take a look a this table and tell me, why should one mine gneiss instead of kernite?



I've lived in WH space for years. So when I say it's impossible to get my freighter to Jita, I actually mean impossible. Sometimes it takes weeks to get a freighter route (based soley on mass limits of wh - freighters can't physically pass through some WH).

I'll give you that WH living and null power block living aren't at all similar on a logistics level, but they both have their equally daunting roadblocks. Null I would say has volume and distance and WH has mass and 'where the frak am I popping out this time?' We both have issues to deal with.

There isn't initiative to live in null because the current null life sux. More pve isn't going to change that. Changing roid yields isn't going to change that. Breaking up the blue BS will change it. I have old friends convoing me every day or so coming back to the game because of the jump changes. If mining kernite is better than ABC stuff, then sure that's a problem, but it's not a jump range problem.

The lack of meaningful PVP is killing null. The ironic part about the big coallitions is that the one thing a big blue donut can't provide is the one thing that keeps folks playing the game.... meaningful pvp.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1588 - 2014-10-20 15:29:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Skia Aumer wrote:

I'm asking for less mess with cynos.


so, may be, just may be, CCP doesn't want you to travel those distances in easy mode anymore, to start with?

The whole purpose of Phoebe is to make Eve feel some bigger again, you are silly to stand up and moan about too much mess with cynos in order to do what you do today - you are not supposed to, its the whole point.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#1589 - 2014-10-20 15:32:07 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Turrann Dallocort wrote:
Mr Greyscale,
Can we please take some time now to talk about some changes to the Rorq? I would be glad to change out some of my drone for the ability to go 10ly. This is far more important to me than drones at this moment, until you all redo the rorq completely.


Yup, absolutely we can talk about it :) This proposal doesn't seem terrible to me, does anyone else have an opinion or supporting arguments?


How is the drone bonus even worth considering in balance calculations for the Rorqual? Its really not important Lol

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1590 - 2014-10-20 15:41:18 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Turrann Dallocort wrote:
Mr Greyscale,
Can we please take some time now to talk about some changes to the Rorq? I would be glad to change out some of my drone for the ability to go 10ly. This is far more important to me than drones at this moment, until you all redo the rorq completely.


Yup, absolutely we can talk about it :) This proposal doesn't seem terrible to me, does anyone else have an opinion or supporting arguments?


How is the drone bonus even worth considering in balance calculations for the Rorqual? Its really not important Lol


that's why its worth considering if its not important can it be removed for something the Rorqual will use

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1591 - 2014-10-20 15:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lord TGR wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Lord TGR, I am sure that you have already seen that CCP expects you to wait 30 min to an entire week, depending on the distances traveled, so what is a few hours when you don't even have to be at the computer? And if CCP wants the capitals to travel faster under my proposal, then that is easily adjusted. Perhaps 10 min per ly will allow FCs to consider the worst case scenario to be all enemies within a couple regions; enemies 10 ly away will take 100 min to arrive on the field at that rate and the battle may be completely over by that time with the victors ready to mop up inbound ships one at a time if they have not dropped out of jump by then.

See, the thing is that what you're doing is nerfing all travel which isn't done by gates, so using caps' jumping ability for anything other than a GTFO card means they're useless, or you have to use a ouija board to figure out where someone's going to be and when, so you can time the arrival precisely.

What CCP's solution does is nerf travel over long distances, while still allowing caps and supercaps to be used offensively AND allowing them to get the **** out in 5-6 minutes if need be, for a slight fatigue penalty after the fact. Or you can go 2 jumps over in 6 minutes and still get in on the action, but you're stuck in that system for a while longer (I can't be arsed to calculate the exact minimum time, but it's certainly not "hours") before you can jump out if you must.


Not useless, just delayed. Want to know how long before someone arrives? Take the distance and divide the travel speed. Pretty simple math actually. Again, if time is the issue, CCP has already stated that they desire stargates to be the default option for traveling fast.

Want everyone to arrive together and at the same time? Then everyone jumps to a staging point. The time of travel from the staging location to the destination will be the exact same for everyone.

Lord TGR wrote:

Andy Landen wrote:
I know that my proposal scraps the wh concept of the jump drive entirely and replaces it with a "hyperdrive" style jump. wh travel is instant but that is the very thing that CCP takes issue with when large fleets jump across vast distances instantly. Technically, their should be no limitation to the distance covered by a wormhole, so we really can't hold that strongly to jump drives being bound to the wh style. I far prefer the "hyperdrive" style jump drive because it introduces travel delay and it doesn't require cynos or destinations.

Your proposal also scraps JBs and the use of cynos in any way, shape or form, even for local defense. Basically, you're annoyed with a broken toe (CCP's solution), so you're bringing out the 12 gauge and shooting your entire foot off.

JBs still function normally for subcaps and allow instant travel, so they are not scrapped in any way. If caps can use stargates, I think they should be able to use jump bridges AGAIN too (CCP scrapped capital usage of jbs a while back). Cynos could still be used to provide a common destination where bookmarks and celestials are not desired for a common destination, so they would not be scrapped either.

Lord TGR wrote:

So cynojammers by default, then. Or you would have to say "no, $alliance#2, this is $alliance#1's sov, so your carriers and dreads can't come here. Sorry.", which isn't what I'd call very sandboxy, nor is it allowing the attacker all that much possibility to hit much of anything inside someone's space (which, with CCP's solution is still the case now, but in their solution the reason is from strategic reasons, not because of the wrong sov).

Yep. Break up blue donuts and force alliances to use stargates and jump bridges beyond their own borders or to jump through ls/npc null sec space. CCP wants regional fights to be regional and that means that alliances in distant regions cannot jump across large distances instantly deep into another alliance's territory. To that end, blue jbs should also be limited to each respective alliance.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#1592 - 2014-10-20 15:44:51 UTC
Rammix wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The goals of this change are pretty clear, and we're keen to follow up and ensure that we hit them over time.

The problem is, while you're changing/fixing something - we're playing it. For you some fail may be just an unsuccessful experiment, for us it's several months in that environment. I hope you (devs) keep remembering this all the time.

We went through this process in FW. It lead to lots of whining on the forums but massive amounts of pew in game.

Chaos in the meta is actually good for the game - it makes lots of people think they can accomplish something and that leads to lots of pew.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1593 - 2014-10-20 15:46:40 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

My point is that a big reason that 0.0 exists in the way it does today is because you've made the logistics side TOO easy. In fact the commentary on this done by the CSM rep CoreBloodBrothers is a very good point to this (I listened to the interview he gave with Bob's Corner). It shouldn't take one JF pilot a few minutes to jump goods to a whole region like that... Think about all the PVP that is potentially wasted becuase things like Freighter OPS using gates are a thing of the past now. Can you image the amount of loss that would happen when you loose 10-20 freighters full of goods?! In fact I seem to remember this actually happening a couple times before all this bridge foolishness was released. Honestly, you should just remove pos bridges completely while you are at it.


Oh my god - i cant believe this. Finally a voice that points out what i posted a few days back. Get completely rid of those jump bridges!!!

+1 and my full support to a player who has actually been in the real industry mess of null :)

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1594 - 2014-10-20 15:53:28 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:

I'm asking for less mess with cynos.


so, may be, just may be, CCP doesn't want you to travel those distances in easy mode anymore, to start with?

The whole purpose of Phoebe is to make Eve feel some bigger again, you are silly to stand up and moan about too much mess with cynos in order to do what you do today - you are not supposed to, its the whole point.

I didnt stand up until I was asked for. CCP Grayscale obviously doesnt know what to do about Rorqual, and wanted our advice. I expressed my opinion. Did you? No, Instead you try to shut my mouth.

And if you compare trading drone bonuses for 10LY range (as suggested by others) and trading 90% fatigue bonus for 10LY range (suggested by me), you'll see that you're getting primaried the wrong person.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1595 - 2014-10-20 16:31:13 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:

I'm asking for less mess with cynos.


so, may be, just may be, CCP doesn't want you to travel those distances in easy mode anymore, to start with?

The whole purpose of Phoebe is to make Eve feel some bigger again, you are silly to stand up and moan about too much mess with cynos in order to do what you do today - you are not supposed to, its the whole point.

I didnt stand up until I was asked for. CCP Grayscale obviously doesnt know what to do about Rorqual, and wanted our advice. I expressed my opinion. Did you? No, Instead you try to shut my mouth.

And if you compare trading drone bonuses for 10LY range (as suggested by others) and trading 90% fatigue bonus for 10LY range (suggested by me), you'll see that you're getting primaried the wrong person.



NO to anything range or fatigue related. You don't like the drone bonus, then go for something more usefull to mining. Make it boost better than an orca w/out burning fuel. Give it a bigger SMA so you can jump a larger mining fleet that shorter distance. Heck - I don't care as long as it isn't jump related.

We use a rorq in the wh as a super noctis. It's got great tractor range/speed, it's got a capital ship tank and it's got capital remote shield/armor/capacitor capabilities.

If it does get to jump 10LY I think the obvious trade off would be to prevent capital transfer modules being used. That would hurt my bottom line in the WH, but I'd gladly trade that to limit the potential for it to be a suboptimal capital logistics platform.
Circumstantial Evidence
#1596 - 2014-10-20 17:20:27 UTC
Rorqual used for POS setup / fueling is very powerful because of its cloak capability compared to JF. If granted 10 LY It can be taken deep into neutral/hostile space to set up forward bases, and go AFK cloaked until hunters get tired of looking for what the cyno brought in. I don't think losing the drone bonus is enough of a tradeoff to "pay for" 10 LY range... and would rather see it stuck at 5 LY max range because it can more easily take care of itself thanks to the cloak, along its route.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1597 - 2014-10-20 17:24:41 UTC
Seems to me that every change that's getting announced recently is technically a stealth buff to the resurging viability, and survivability, of battleship fleets. Definitely liking this.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1598 - 2014-10-20 17:26:40 UTC
So I'd like to bring up a slightly different point -- something that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been mentioned before: missing lowsec gate connections. This primarily concerns combat capitals; those limited to five lightyears' range.

The goal of the long distance travel changes is to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping for capital ships. However, this is predicated on the availability of corridors for capital ships to travel in the first place. While most of lowsec is reasonably interconnected, there exist three exceptions to this rule.

Namely, sections of lowsec in southern Aridia/Khanid, Tash-Murkon, and Derelik are completely isolated from the rest of lowsec and REQUIRE at least one jump to traverse. The inaccessibility of these regions via lowsec-gate-only corridor range from relatively easy to overcome (Aridia's inaccessibility is the fault of a single highsec island system, Sazilid) to punishing (all traffic to lowsec Tash-Murkon must jump in and out a single system, Mai.)

These regions represent a very important strategic staging location for assaulting the regions of Delve, Querious, and Providence with the capital ships needed to wage modern warfare. I'm not trying to suggest that ALL systems in lowsec be interconnected with each other, but having large pockets of strategically crucial lowsec be inaccessible outside of jumping does not feel right to me.

With this in mind, my question becomes does CCP consider large sections of inaccessible lowsec an issue? If so, I'd be happy to suggest some fixes to the problem.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1599 - 2014-10-20 17:47:46 UTC
Querns wrote:
So I'd like to bring up a slightly different point -- something that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been mentioned before: missing lowsec gate connections. This primarily concerns combat capitals; those limited to five lightyears' range.

The goal of the long distance travel changes is to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping for capital ships. However, this is predicated on the availability of corridors for capital ships to travel in the first place. While most of lowsec is reasonably interconnected, there exist three exceptions to this rule.

Namely, sections of lowsec in southern Aridia/Khanid, Tash-Murkon, and Derelik are completely isolated from the rest of lowsec and REQUIRE at least one jump to traverse. The inaccessibility of these regions via lowsec-gate-only corridor range from relatively easy to overcome (Aridia's inaccessibility is the fault of a single highsec island system, Sazilid) to punishing (all traffic to lowsec Tash-Murkon must jump in and out a single system, Mai.)

These regions represent a very important strategic staging location for assaulting the regions of Delve, Querious, and Providence with the capital ships needed to wage modern warfare. I'm not trying to suggest that ALL systems in lowsec be interconnected with each other, but having large pockets of strategically crucial lowsec be inaccessible outside of jumping does not feel right to me.

With this in mind, my question becomes does CCP consider large sections of inaccessible lowsec an issue? If so, I'd be happy to suggest some fixes to the problem.


The goal of long distance travel changes IS to limit force projection and its various aspects. It IS NOT "to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping capital ships.

Your premise is wrong.

It sounds like you're complaining that you have to make one jump because there are HS systems blocking you from gate to gate travel?? Make the one jump and forget about it. It looks like CCP just created 3 areas of new and interesting fun.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1600 - 2014-10-20 17:52:26 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
The goal of long distance travel changes IS to limit force projection and its various aspects. It IS NOT "to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping capital ships.

Your premise is wrong.

It sounds like you're complaining that you have to make one jump because there are HS systems blocking you from gate to gate travel?? Make the one jump and forget about it. It looks like CCP just created 3 areas of new and interesting fun.


Actually, it's not. From the long distance travel changes devblog:

Quote:

We are going to allow capital ships to use gates in lowsec/nullsec, and we are aiming to make gate-to-gate travel take less time than jump travel over distances of more than ~20 LY. We've run simulations for capital ships travelling between arbitrary pairs of systems, and settled on the target movement speed of no less than 3 minutes per lightyear for travel over 20 LY. This should allow us to bring about the main change we want to see – less sustained use of jump travel – while still preserving its value for short bursts of movement.


I feel that the issue I've brought up is in the same spirit as the section I've quoted. Having these natural barriers in place and forcing you to accrue fatigue just to get into an area seems counterproductive.

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