These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Dev Blog] Phoebe Travel Change Update

First post
Author
Tash'k Omar
Indefinite Mass
Odin's Call
#61 - 2014-10-30 20:32:26 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Seriously, keeping the drone bonus? That is used about the same as the walking in stations option


What's this walking in station's option?
Turrann Dallocort
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#62 - 2014-10-30 20:33:51 UTC
I'm not sure you understood the actual opinion stated by some of the rorq pilots in the previous thread. The trade off for a shorter jump range in exchange for a drone bonus is worth it ONLY if the rorq is being reworked NOW or in the very near future. But without that, you are asking us to hold on to a promise that you guys have been making for some time, every time a capability and benefit of the rorq is taken away, that the rorq will be getting a complete overhaul at some point and it is on the to do list. Asking us to hold on to a pretty much useless bonus for the here and now for the promise that sometime down the road (but who knows when) we will get to you isn't giving much for us to put our faith in. We are also giving up all these capabilities that are exclusive or special to the rorq not knowing what you have in store for us.


By the way, y'all promised back in late summer of 2012 that rats were also going to drop clothing items in loot and that never happened...... You want me to just trust you on this one too?
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2014-10-30 20:34:24 UTC
Akita T wrote:

Most of the jump fatigue evasion relay pilots don't need to be fully trained - in fact, they can have a skeleton skillset.

nope, because then they get absolutely murdered when a spy rats out the fleet of supercaps unable to online basic mods and you are minus one supercap fleet
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2014-10-30 20:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Omniblivion
Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat:

Rorqual zKillboard

People set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc.

Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough.

Edit: Looking at it, the zkillboard even shows that there is significantly more logistics activity with rorqs than the drone bonus being used for pvp. The vast majority of the kills from rorqs are on POS equipment, siphons, etc.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2014-10-30 20:35:50 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
So now I can't jump from low-sec station to Venal station anymore. I guess we now have to stealth jump at the lowest peak hours... that's pretty sad for the extra small corps that wants to live in nullsec.

Nah -- just mid in 5zxx instead. It's neutral!

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,444/Aunenen:5ZXX-K:H-PA29

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

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2014-10-30 20:36:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Yroc Jannseen
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.


Thank you for some feedback.

This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range?

From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead.

Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there?

The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious.

We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped.

*Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed


The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people.

All that said, as previously we're prepared to revisit that decision, but we don't feel like we have a strong enough case for doing so yet.


What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?

There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.

And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?

If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.
Eodp Ellecon
Air
The Initiative.
#67 - 2014-10-30 20:41:22 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use.


Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#68 - 2014-10-30 20:42:12 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat:

Rorqual zKillboard

People set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc.

Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough.


The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.

If we need a 1/3 JF, there should be a 1/3 JF... Rorqual needs real love, not to be pigeon holed into being a super long train cheap logistics ship.
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#69 - 2014-10-30 20:42:30 UTC
nospet wrote:
So what happens if the station you are in gets taken over and your med clone is there?

Are you stuck in the station for a year?


You can always switch your med clone to your starter corp's station in highsec. There's always a "get out of jail free" card there ;)

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information

Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#70 - 2014-10-30 20:42:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
Baron Deathicon wrote:
So now I can't jump from low-sec station to Venal station anymore. I guess we now have to stealth jump at the lowest peak hours... that's pretty sad for the extra small corps that wants to live in nullsec.

Nah -- just mid in 5zxx instead. It's neutral!

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,444/Aunenen:5ZXX-K:H-PA29


Thank you sir!
Eodp Ellecon
Air
The Initiative.
#71 - 2014-10-30 20:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Eodp Ellecon
“Ships in the following groups gain a 90% reduction to effective distance traveled: industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, freighter, industrial command ship, capital industrial ship, jump freighter.

This eases the impact of these changes on alliance logistics for the time being. We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we don’t feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.

No part of EVE is capable of self-sufficient access to the volumes consumed of all goods yet it is hard to read the above italics without reading it as planned obsolesce for the jump freighter and possibly others. At no point in history has the ability of the merchant to move goods become slower and more handicapped (volume, speed or distance) due to improvements in technology.

Baffling that in our space game you would do so but we’ll have to see in a year or so what you intend. Ponder that at some point you will have to allow a ‘lifetime career’ SP remap because you have made a specialized alt-toon (which you encouraged) obsolete.
Turrann Dallocort
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#72 - 2014-10-30 20:45:27 UTC
You are very right. BUT, until they give it an update and make it rational to have it IN the belts where it COULD be tackled........

Opner Dresden wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat:

Rorqual zKillboard

People set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc.

Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough.


The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.

If we need a 1/3 JF, there should be a 1/3 JF... Rorqual needs real love, not to be pigeon holed into being a super long train cheap logistics ship.

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2014-10-30 20:45:41 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:

The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.


If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill
Tikitina
Doomheim
#74 - 2014-10-30 20:47:56 UTC
Eodp Ellecon wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use.


Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.



There are innovative use of techniques and there are blatant exploits to get around a purposeful intent of game design.

Innovative use of techniques usually has nothing to do with the game design intent.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#75 - 2014-10-30 20:49:33 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?

There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.

And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?


I can only assume at this point that Greyscale is keeping the Rorqual drone bonus either as a hilarious CCP in-joke or as an attempt to win some sort of dare with one of his colleagues.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#76 - 2014-10-30 20:50:52 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:

The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.


If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill


Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).

Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-10-30 20:58:16 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:

The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.


If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill


Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).

Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.


How many iskies do you loose by warping your mining toonies to a pos and dumping your ore in a compression array?

Since they increased the hold on most of the barges/exhumers, how much of a difference does warping off really make?
Ghelisis Achasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2014-10-30 21:01:47 UTC
Quote:
Carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers, titans and capital industrials can now use stargates, provided they do not lead into a highsec system.
We want to reduce the usage of jump drives (see below), but we don’t also want to lock ships into particular systems. We also want to encourage more gate-to-gate traffic and allow more ships to use gates!
We’d like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but it’s a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec.


If you did this, you'd ALSO have to model completely new stargates. Hell, I don't think the carriers can fit into the stargates now.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2014-10-30 21:03:34 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).

Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.


Right, if the Rorq were worth sieging at a belt, then yes, a drone bonus would be viable. But as you said, parking a Rorq at a belt is not viable- therefore, for the immediate changes coming up, dropping drone bonus for extended jump range makes sense- right?

Having increased drone damage on a ship that currently rarely sees belts for an extended period of time is laughable.

I realize the ship needs a full rework. "So does CCP". But they've been saying that for nearly a year now, and zero changes have come except this one.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#80 - 2014-10-30 21:07:32 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:


What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?

There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.

And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?

If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.


I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).

Eodp Ellecon wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use.


Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.


Any techniques that become a dominant strategy will be squashed or nerfed because a big part of the underlying value of a sandbox game is that there are lots of interesting decisions to make, and when some of those decisions collapse into a single best option that is a bad thing. Trying to keep innovative techniques possible is exactly why we're not clamping down hard on all the possible outcomes out of the gate.

Eodp Ellecon wrote:
“Ships in the following groups gain a 90% reduction to effective distance traveled: industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, freighter, industrial command ship, capital industrial ship, jump freighter.

This eases the impact of these changes on alliance logistics for the time being. We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we don’t feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.

No part of EVE is capable of self-sufficient access to the volumes consumed of all goods yet it is hard to read the above italics without reading it as planned obsolesce for the jump freighter and possibly others. At no point in history has the ability of the merchant to move goods become slower and more handicapped (volume, speed or distance) due to improvements in technology.

Baffling that in our space game you would do so but we’ll have to see in a year or so what you intend. Ponder that at some point you will have to allow a ‘lifetime career’ SP remap because you have made a specialized alt-toon (which you encouraged) obsolete.


Yup, no part of EVE is sufficiently self-sufficient to justify nerfing JFs yet. That's a thing we'd have to change before any further JF adjustments.