These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue

First post
Author
Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#121 - 2015-08-07 14:15:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Karti Aivo
Fatigue is a necessary mechanic in my opinion, however its nowhere perfect right now.

Obviously giving all ships the same fatigue amount is somewhat off, and punishes a lot of specially younger people who do not understand the mechanic. However, i would not remove Fatigue completely from Subcaps, as otherwise it would be abused again. For an organized entity it would be pretty easy to build up a "Titan Highway" through Lowsec / NPC Nullsec to project Subcaps fleets virtually everywhere.

So i would suggest to somehow tie the Fatigue generated to the Mass of the ship, much like Wormholes.


In addition to that, Jump Bridges should generate a LOT LESS Fatigue. The routes of JBs are fixed and they are basicly Stargates with an Access Control List. Unless CCP wants the player-constructed stargates that soon[tm] will be released to generate Jump Fatigue aswell, JBs should have no Fatigue either.

The stakes to install JBs in the first place are already quite high.
Equto
Imperium Technologies
Evictus.
#122 - 2015-08-07 22:13:38 UTC
Im not exactly sure how to phrase this without it sounding like it has a bias to it, but

With the current jump ranges, fatigue, and distances between regions, is the reduction in power projection outweigh the pain currently involved with massive (alliance or corp) moves?
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#123 - 2015-08-08 00:34:30 UTC
Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#124 - 2015-08-08 01:40:33 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far?



Some regions are grossly different sizes, if you are at the edge of a large region, you could go the other way and leapfrog 2 regions
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#125 - 2015-08-08 03:39:42 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
I really like the geography Phoebe has created. It has even helped break up the giant coalitions. All of this is good. I see people complain about logistics, but remember logistics is directly related to power projection. Do we really want to shift things back towards this? Ugh


As a point, the changes in geography have very little to do with power projection, and far more to do with the Aegis Sov system: you have to live in your space in order to hold it. Rental empires full of renters who won't fleet up to defend the space can't be defended by landlord alliances - the Entosis Links have to be in the rental alliance. This doesn't change even with the ability to project forces across the map in minutes. If you don't have the population density to hold a region, you won't hold it.

Nor are the power projection changes the cause of the 'break up' of the giant coalitions. The CFC/Imperium didn't break up, and N3 is currently in the process of re-forming as PL gets NCdot settled back into Delve, next door to Darkness' Guardians of the Galaxy Coalition. I expect once NCdot is firmly in place, they'll be joining the Guardians, who they've helped in multiple battles already.

Now, to the question:

One of the explicitly stated intentions of the Phoebe jump fatigue changes was the limitation of power projection across the map, while retaining the use of capital ships in a localized, defensive role. The 5LY distance certainly helps with that, however, the fatigue often winds up having an excessively chilling effect - especially given the need for relatively rapid response for Entosis defense. Capitals are already an extremely poor choice for carrying the link itself (a T2 link will lock a capital in place for 20m, minimum - 1 10m warp-up cycle, and then the 'active' cycle, which will have to run to completion regardless of whether or not the structure requires only 30 seconds of entosis work to fully restore). This has an overall effect of making these ships largely useless for defense against the harassing tactics using small, light, fast interceptors that were warned about - and which have emerged en masse, despite widespread claims by the community that these tactics would be impossible, and efforts by the devs to ensure so-called 'trollceptors' would not dominate the entosis meta. Put simply, the capital ships cannot provide the ability that would seem their primary advantage - the ability to leapfrog across multiple systems in order to defend nodes while subcapital fleets pursue intruders more directly. They can jump once. And then wait an hour before attempting to get ahead of the interceptor(s) a second time. Let's face it, an hour later, that interceptor (or group) is probably long gone.

With this in mind, is there a possibility for tying Jump Fatigue to the ADMs for the system you are jumping out of, possibly via IHUB upgrade? Considering that capital systems are also frequently market hub systems, this would also have the effect of improving the ability of nullsec entities to support and maintain local markets and local manufacturing - another stated goal of the Phoebe changes, as the intent behind the inclusion of Jump Freighters in the fatigue was to make deliveries to and from Highsec less desirable than local production, and so stimulate local manufacturing.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#126 - 2015-08-08 10:49:52 UTC
I have one question, although a bit of offtopic.

When the iterations of Jump Fatigue and Aegisov are done, what will be the next thing null security space will absolutely need from CCP so the rest of the game keeps getting just random scraps of content?

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

B0RG 0VERLORD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2015-08-08 11:50:11 UTC
well at the time fozzie&cosov was announced i remember ccp saying that jump fatigue didn't go with the sov changes,is this ccp attempt to justify removing fatigue or are they just collecting tears?

Does CCP mean crap coding people

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#128 - 2015-08-08 11:55:09 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
I have one question, although a bit of offtopic.

When the iterations of Jump Fatigue and Aegisov are done, what will be the next thing null security space will absolutely need from CCP so the rest of the game keeps getting just random scraps of content?


Resource/income distribution, and a balance pass on the 2 aspects you just mentioned should about cover it. Then CCP can ignore 0.0 for another 5 years, as they did between Dominion and Crius.

And then you can go back to saying that you'll definitely, absolutely, you really really mean it this time, quit EVE for ever and ever if you don't get WiS or wholly instanced PvP-free grinding, or whatever other windmill you want to pay CCP $15/mo for the privilege of tilting at on these forums.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

kelvin oriley
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
Reckless Contingency.
#129 - 2015-08-08 12:14:03 UTC
i hope this dosent get lost in the mess that this thread is bound to become

ok ill start this by saying in all i like the jump changes if it was a choice of having them in the game and having not in the game i would keep them they addressed a major issue of the game and solved it my question is regarding the collateral damage caused in the process

by this i mean black ops and JB networks they have lost there effectivness and usefullness and ause barrier to Participation ie i cant go with the fleet through this jb because i have a timer they dont so i get left behind and go back to the station and spin



i can not think of a solution that would solve the issues entirly without bringing back the old issues but here is my 2 cents and my question

is it possible to change the system so that the amount of fatige reciveed is in relation to the mass of the ship jumped and the distance jumped rather than just a base multiplier times distance


this would help negate the pain of traveling around in own space to join up with people by useing small fragile ships but more importently further incuraging black ops use but keeping the fix for capitals
kelvin oriley
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
Reckless Contingency.
#130 - 2015-08-08 12:31:01 UTC
please please please dont allows this round table to become a bunch of the big ali guys wining over there super fleets they were nerfed for a reason guys so get in a real ship and put some effert into playing the game

no more we win buttons for the large coalitions

is this rearly engaging content for both players
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46868091/

i think not
Nyx Spire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2015-08-08 13:11:11 UTC
Q: Will we see the other industrial ships get the 90% reduction bonus e.g mining barges exhumers

Q: Will we see the other, other industrial ships get the 90% reduction bonus e.g navatis, mining frigates

Q: Will we see shuttles and or newb ships get a 90-99% reduction in jump fatigue

Q: could we see a -50% fatigue for logi ships

Q: What are the chances of having jump fatigue removed from alliance jb networks all together. or having it tied into sov levels

Q: Are we likely to see a reduction in capital jump fuel (isatopes) required per jump now that we have jump fatigue

Q: Will the monthly ihub upgrade bill and cost in materials to build said upgrades for jb, beacons and cyno jammers be reduced due to the agis changes e.g jump fatigue

Q: Will we see drones being reinstated for supers and dreads now that their movement is more risky. and there are less structures to grind. or will they be given more high slots or turret hard points

Q: Will we see high slots and hard points added to freighters and jump freighters due to the new risks they must face being encouraged to go gate to gate

Q: With jump fatigue reducing the amount of surprise hot drop ganks are we likely to see a deployable mobile local scrambler structure. not scoop-able half a days life span, scan probable, that hides local count. like how local works in a worm hole
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#132 - 2015-08-08 13:47:52 UTC
My isusse was not so much with the jump fatigue and more to do with the nerf of jump range, why couldn't you leave the range that we had before and scale up the fatigue instead on the current basis of range.

Apart from that I support the changes and like tha fact that people can have localised combat without having to maintain an ultra large watch list for all PL, and NCDOT capital pilots.

But I am aware that many people have lost the chance to do fun, so you might want to allow one jump without jump fatigue to 5 LY based on the current jump range and even if you put it back to what it was, start it after the first jump of 5LY.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#133 - 2015-08-08 16:08:02 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far?



Some regions are grossly different sizes, if you are at the edge of a large region, you could go the other way and leapfrog 2 regions


I don't see that as being too bad. The regions that are huge tend to have one really exploitable link inside anyway.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Racheral Tekitsu
#134 - 2015-08-08 17:08:33 UTC
5 LY for carriers seem a little excessive what about 7.5 LY Max skilled.

But on topic at least give us a skill to reduce Jump Fatigue timers and/or the exponential factor that goes into it. As for big blocs using it and possibly exploiting it yeah it happens. But so does that one or two guys that fleet up without JC 5.
Jaime Lauren
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#135 - 2015-08-08 17:20:08 UTC
Has CCP considered the dual role of carriers in logistics vs combat roles? There is no other way to transport assembled ships.

Would they consider a module (rig? implant perhaps?) That allows for a longer single jump? Perhaps some modification to jf that allows assembled ships?

Perhaps logistics and combat should be further separated. Not sure of any of the above solutions, just food for thought.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#136 - 2015-08-08 17:58:16 UTC
kelvin oriley wrote:


is it possible to change the system so that the amount of fatige reciveed is in relation to the mass of the ship jumped and the distance jumped rather than just a base multiplier times distance


this would help negate the pain of traveling around in own space to join up with people by useing small fragile ships but more importently further incuraging black ops use but keeping the fix for capitals


I think this is the opposite direction that we need.

If you want small ships to get around your own space use an interceptor. Frigates and destroyers don't need any help traversing space at this point.

If you are going to look at differentiating subcap fatigue bonuses it should be based on class.

So as a question.

Would CCP consider giving subcaps different fatigue bonuses based on class? If so would you consider doing an upside down pyramid approach, giving the larger ships a bigger bonus, as travel with these is more tedious than travel with smaller ships?

The heavier ships get bridged into combat the lighter stuff travels by gates. Essentially this is an extension of what we have with capitals already.
Blue Doughnut
Doomheim
#137 - 2015-08-08 17:59:52 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Does CCP have a metric on rough number of subscriptions lost due to Pheobe changes?

Pheobe and ISBoxer ban were so close, it may not be able to split those 2 out though....

That's ok. We can blame ISBoxer sub losses on Phoebe anyways to help convince them to reverse this awful change. I want my power back.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#138 - 2015-08-08 18:01:26 UTC
We've gathered all the questions posed so far and now we are putting them into subjects so that we can have some cohesive structure. Also, the discussions between questions are useful. Thank you for participating.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Nameira Vanis-Tor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2015-08-08 19:16:50 UTC
Forgive me if this has been stated elsewhere the threadnaught is too long!

I would like to say that as a low sec resident in the Amarr/Minmatar warzone for the past 18 months that that area of space has become much healthier for content since jump fatigue came into effect. We used to have a major capital supremacy group stage within the warzone who could and would project those capitals across the length and breadth of New Eden with ease. When they were bored they would drop capitals on anything in the warzone larger than a destroyer fleet if they could.

Jump fatigue made them have to choose where to base much more carefully and the health of the region has blossomed since they had to relocate. Where once there was one 1 invincible superpower there are now several groups ranging from small to large that have started to fill the void creating a more dynamic and varied environment. Capital ships are still used however mostly by local powers who have an investment in the politics of the region rather than 'oh look a Hel is undocked' and 20 Nyxs are teleported from the other side of the map in a matter of minutes.

If the effects of jump fatigue are watered down I worry that these regional players will be more likely to get squashed by returning super powers looking to regain peripheral holdings if their main fleets can afford to reach the area again from wherever they are currently deployed.

My opinion only, not looking to start an argument. Here at least.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#140 - 2015-08-08 19:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Sugar Kyle wrote:
We've gathered all the questions posed so far and now we are putting them into subjects so that we can have some cohesive structure. Also, the discussions between questions are useful. Thank you for participating.


I forgot you were gathering questions. I have one:

What are CCP & The CSM's thoughts on refining the Phoebe travel restrictions with a view to changing the restrictive mechanism from a flat timer to a gameplay or chance-based mechanism?

eg: jump a carrier while your jump timer is still active being possible, but having a chance, which increases with the level of the timer of landing you elsewhere in the grid, the system or just in the whole map?

eg: when a capital ship is cyno jumped, instead of just *BOOSH* you appear, you have to navigate your ship through a warp tunnel to the destination - the further away the destination, the longer you have to spend in the tunnel; The higher your fatigue, the more twisty and obstacle-strewn the path is. Clipping the edge of the tunnel might damage your hull, offline modules or land you in an expected destination.

Since many of the objections I see to the travel changes are complaints about "weaponised boredom" &c from restrictive timers that can't be mitigated or altered, then changing the mechanism to one that allows the pilot to take a risk and/or affect the outcome with piloting skill, with unexpected outcomes offering unpredictable gameplay scenarios might allieviate these complaints.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016