These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#81 - 2014-10-30 21:07:52 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
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?


You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...

but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2014-10-30 21:18:31 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...

but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.


As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler Cool), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so Roll). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2014-10-30 21:28:57 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:

You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...

but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.

i want a pony, which is equally relevant to the current discussion
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#84 - 2014-10-30 21:50:50 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:
You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...

but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.


As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler Cool), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so Roll). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups.


But the JF range is only a band-aid anyway. It's going away. So why also temp-buff the rorq to continue supporting activity CCP has directly stated they want to make harder? If you can't jump capitals to defend a moon, logistics isn't important to it either. If you can jump capitals to it to defend it, the 90% fatigue and 5ly range isn't a problem.

In this, you're asking for 3-9 months of extended range and giving up a substantial bonus on a ship that can be useful with a few small database tweaks.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#85 - 2014-10-30 21:53:26 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:
You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...

but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.


As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler Cool), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so Roll). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups.


It may be more work but isn't warping the rorq in and out a feasible alternative? You certainly don't need the drone bonus for that.

If you're just hauling ore you could refit lows to I-stabs and surely you could find a spot on one of your barges for webs.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
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).


Hearing this is better than nothing and at least tells us where you are at with a full pass. But the drone damage for jump distance swap still seems to make more sense in the short term.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2014-10-30 21:54:08 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
In this, you're asking for 3-9 months of extended range and giving up a substantial bonus on a ship that can be useful with a few small database tweaks.

Substantial bonus? Substantial for what?
Brystina
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#87 - 2014-10-30 22:08:56 UTC
Nice xkcd reference in the jump fatigue example.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2014-10-30 22:19:10 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
[
It may be more work but isn't warping the rorq in and out a feasible alternative? You certainly don't need the drone bonus for that.

If you're just hauling ore you could refit lows to I-stabs and surely you could find a spot on one of your barges for webs.


That's what was implied as a hauler- that is basically the current use if you're using it a belt. It's a glorified hauler that can fit a cloak or jump out if hostiles are in the system.

Even then, at a certain capacity, even a rorqual is not enough haul for the job (that's where a freighter comes in)
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#89 - 2014-10-30 22:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Moving to a rorqual thread

Yaay!!!!
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#90 - 2014-10-30 23:22:17 UTC
no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#91 - 2014-10-30 23:24:36 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Akita T wrote:
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.

do the math on the network of characters you need to do this

then do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot

come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive


didnt they say that about titans... how they were so expensive only a few would ever be made?

though i do not see any alliance taking back the blue doughnut just wont work with the eventuallity of the "free form occupation" sov model.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-10-30 23:24:47 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog

It's not even coming until Rhea. Calm down.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#93 - 2014-10-30 23:27:06 UTC
Querns wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog

It's not even coming until Rhea. Calm down.


k but its getting the fatigue bonus thing right?

Sorry for some reason i thoguht it was shipping on Wednesday.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Lord TGR
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2014-10-30 23:29:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord TGR
MeBiatch wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Akita T wrote:
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps.
And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.

do the math on the network of characters you need to do this

then do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot

come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive


didnt they say that about titans... how they were so expensive only a few would ever be made?

Apples, meet oranges. You're different.

MeBiatch wrote:
though i do not see any alliance taking back the blue doughnut just wont work with the eventuallity of the "free form occupation" sov model.

I've no idea what you're getting at with this.
Tribalist
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2014-10-31 00:07:13 UTC
CCP can you do us a favor and reduce the timer on a cyno. With the current jump fatigue system we no longer need a 10 minute cyno.

I might recommend reducing it to 5 minutes for a normal Cyno, with the Recon Bonus for Recon ships reducing it as normal. It's not like we will be using to to chain back and forth anymore.
PerrinBash
Living the Dream
#96 - 2014-10-31 00:08:24 UTC
Right, so with dumbing down of eve your now allowing any active account to unlimited (basically) training, changed all the reprocessing, allow all of hi sec harassment and bumping as fair play, revamp of all manufacturing and research, making most skills to level 5 a thing of past, and don't allow freighters mid slots or rigs, or any capacity to defend themselves.
Your moving toward the end game, lets just make it happen. Select the top 15% of SP players to get jovian technology and let us wreck eve, or....just keep chipping away at it bit by bit.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#97 - 2014-10-31 01:18:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Seriously? You can justify pretty much anything by saying "there are probably people who are satisfied who didn't bother replying." If you're going to introduce easily avoidable cognitive biases like that, you diminish the quality of feedback you receive.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

No, that's not the only way. You could have made a separate thread specifically putting both options on the table and asked which one players would have preferred. You don't just throw up your hands and say "well people who didn't post could be on board with this idea, so we don't know what they want".
kiu Nakamura
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#98 - 2014-10-31 01:22:07 UTC  |  Edited by: kiu Nakamura
Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19

1) Covert

Quote:
Ships using a Covert Jump Portal similarly gain a 50% reduction to effective distance traveled for that jump; this multiplies with other similar bonuses.

So a Blockade Runner being BLOPSed to a covert cyno has a 95% distance bonus?

2) Fatigue in minutes
As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for.

3) Max time
Nullarbor mentioned a fatigue cap of 30days, but this isnt mentioned in the latest devblog. Is this no longer the case?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2jwwn9/jump_fatigue_calculator/clg0a2w

4) Shameless plug
Checkout http://fatigue.501gu.de it should be matching the latest devblog.
Eigenvalue
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2014-10-31 01:24:36 UTC
I for one am really excited to sit in station not playing eve while timers run down!

Are any tools being provided to help FC's know what the jump timer maximum is across their fleet or the fatigue of individual members? Subcap fleets titan or jump bridging will be logistically impossible without always screwing over someone who was stupid enough to use a jump bridge for a prior fleet.

I'm really excited to be typing in my fatigue counter into fleet chat and spending another 45 minutes on form up negotiating fatigue numbers with FCs and Pilots.

Equally fun will be fleets requiring no fatigue to join etc.

Just tons of excitement in store!

Although - I guess what you should be doing is just blopsing around in BR to your destination ship cache and staging from there thereby avoiding fatigue at all.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#100 - 2014-10-31 01:41:18 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
k but its getting the fatigue bonus thing right?

The fatigue bonus is tied to the "hauler" ship type. So, assuming the ship designed to haul assembled ships around is of the "hauler" type, then it should.