Player Features and Ideas Discussion

U use a Higs rig, DUH

If you don't want to be a scout then dont be one, to say you are nothing more than a boring mobile bookmark though is a lie. This is how we used to do things and there was a lot of people who had fun with it. It is one of the most active jobs you could have in a fleet and a damnsight more engaging than ctrl-click next broadcasted target.

You know how every ship has different warp speeds? You know how 99.9% of doctrines all fly 1-3 ships in each doctrine setting? You know how easy it would be to say, "BS (lol, who uses BS in fleet fights...) start your warp now." *counts down timer* "Logi, start your warp at 50km" *counts down timer* Inties, start your warp now"

Then all of sudden you have a fleet landing roughly at the same time as opposed to the current version of exactly at the same time. This change will give players a lot more responsibility (unless the overlord FC continues to micro manage everything in a fleet as current status quo), and it's still manageable to keep the fleet nearly together. But it also allows players to make mistakes and get punished by that; i.e. warping too early, warping to the wrong range, warping off grid too late and getting caught, etc.

So Larrikin confirmed in the wormhole whatsit that he had not thought about the tight timing involved in catching bears in wormhole sites. This is also an issue in nullsec. If you have to combat scan you are on the clock.

While I understand the goals I do not want this play style hurt by these changes. I hope that CCP's wormhole solution (assuming there is one) is also applicable in null so I have a chance at catching people under these circumstances.

Please at least consider reducing the fitting requirements of Expanded Probe launchers so I don't have to use a T3 to scan and tackle.

To tackle? Lol

Why not? We use just as flimsy interceptors, t1 frigates and Ewar frigs.

Dear CCP - while I am not completely against the changes you propose (at least in principle), I am against subscriptions to my favourite game dropping even further...and this proposal is causing a lot of disquiet. There have been a number of alternative suggestions (great one on reddit at the moment) that I think you guys should probably take away and consider, pushing back any decision for a couple of months...much like the discussed changes to cloaking that got shelved.

It is also probably wise to drop these bombshells a few months in advance, too - giving us a few weeks only allows for the reactive anger cycle, not the following reflective cycle that may actually bring some balance to the debate.

[I would also like you to add ship and mod balancing to this list of 'early warning'- as they effectively cost real world money and I would stop wasting said money on to-be-nerfed skills/ hulls, if I was informed in good time.]

As an aside; I am a product manager for a piece of Software-as-a-Service and if I encountered such open disdain for proposed changes, from my client base, I would at least pause and consider, regardless of the perceived need. The code is my livelihood...threats to it's future efficacy and profitability; actual or perceived, direct or indirect, should be the absolute priority...

TL;DR: Think this clearly needs a little more time and thought, at the very least.

The new guy trying to learn this job will have an even harder time than a vet like you who already can handle part of it.

Can't wait for logi frigs to constantly get slingshotted by their own fleet because they dared take their eyes off their overview to have their range tot he main fleet so they could check the broadcast window and their target to apply reps.

Offloading some fleet movement to the FC frees fleet members to make other tactical decisions rather than spending all their time following lots of trivial orders. EVE is a complicated game and if fleet members aren't already using their brains, they're underperforming. Apart from the warp change breaking multiple playstyles, wormhole life and -10 highsec fleets, nerfing fleet warping or indeed anchoring doesn't change the skill cap, it changes the skill floor and effectively excludes more people from fleets.

If your goal is to increase "fleet participation", driving everyone but another FC alt away from fleets is a terrible way to go about it.

Some suggestions:

1. Nuke fleet warp completely. If CCP wants folks to have to fly more individually, then just do it already.
2. Allow bookmarks to be broadcast as a "Warp to" / "Align to" command.
3. Restrict broadcasting to up/down 1 level. In other words, squad members broadcast to their squadmates and Squad Commander only. Squad Commanders broadcast to their squad members and Wing Commander only. Wing Commanders broadcast to fellow WCs and SCs in their Wing only. FCs only broadcast down to WCs.

IMO, it appears that one big change that CCP is angling towards is to break the ability of a small minority of superstar FCs to efficiently control massive numbers of other pilots. Fleet warp + alts + probes = being able to move masses of people in perfect coordination. Breaking that down by requiring pilots to warp themselves forces pilots to be more on the ball. Fleet success then becomes a bit more about line members being able to fly well than having a good FC plus N+1 F1 monkeys.

Moreover, by restricting broadcasts, you require those in leadership slots to relay commands up/down the fleet structure. This would not only cause delays in targeting and damage application, but would also ensure that someone taking damage didn't get immediate reps from an entire logi wing or similar situation.

At the moment, there are absolutely no downsides to N+1, since a competent FC with a probe alt can ensure perfect coordination. By requiring intermediary levels of command in a fleet to also be on the ball, N+1 is only as effective as the ENTIRETY of your command structure, not just those at the top. This means that a smaller, more well-coordinated fleet would stand a better chance of having an impact against a larger mass with worse coordination.