These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jump Fatigue Feedback

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ponder Stuff
Jump 2 Beacon
OnlyHoles
#121 - 2015-08-13 14:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ponder Stuff
I think all the anger that was visible yesterday shows just how mad a lot of eve has been with the jump changes followed by notfozziesov, and the lack of anybody from ccp wanting to listen combined with the fozzie attitude and ego. Yesterday also saw CSM members shouting at players "Enough, Enough" thats a bit beyond their remit in my opinion concidering the bad feeling that you have created in "your" game recently. I offered to help a friend move his stuff recently and 2 weeks later im still stuck away from my allaince with a lot of of my chars waiting for fatigue and a quiet period so my cynos dont insta die. i think im still 4 jumps from home now so another week or two at my current playrate.... is it any wonder i dont really want to play and i certainly wont offer to help anyone like this again.

I think my feelings mirror that of Tinks (posts 95-96 on page 5 he reasons for these ideas are outlined there to for anyone with the time to read them) and i hope CCP will listen toits players and not some unqualified idiot american want to be dev know it all who has harmed a game we all love very badly.

TinkerHell wrote:
My Idea:

- Capitals can no longer take gates
- Jump fatigue, No fatigue timers for jumping around your local region. (You can keep the 5 minute reactivation timer, i like that).
- Jump fatigue is gained for jumping to a different region, once you are in the new region you gain fatigue timer but only a larger reactivation timer than 5 minutes. (Say 10 minutes for reactivation and 1 hour for fatigue) While you have the 1 hour fatigue timer the reactivation timer on jump drives stays at 10 minutes.
- If you jump to another region before the fatigue is up, you fatigue timer reset to 1 hour and your reactivation timer is now 15 minutes.

Edit: - Reactivation timers would not increase for jumping back to a region that has already been included within the timer as long as its the same cyno(allowing people to shuttle their assets when moving homes or corps)

- In conclusion the fatigue timer is therefore never escalating up into days and encouraging people to log off. The reactivation timer is being increased by small amounts, but if you are travelling across eve these because noticable amounts. For example once you have ran across 4 regions you now have a 20 minute timer. This gives the fight you are rushing to the ability to prepare and counter or make a decision whether to stay or not but still allows capitals to provide support and arrive later in the fight!


We continue to play because we love the game but balance through bordom and tedium has been a bad experiment that needs to end sooner rather than later,its pretty hard to continue a onesided relationship and love a game that gives noting back and when the devs say they are listening, go off and do their own thing regardless.

my current feeling is that hiring Mintchip was a better move than fozzie, she was just useless, fozzie and his ego are game poison.

Its my opinion, feel free to hatemail me ingame, i wont be chacking here again, just like CCP.
Eva Ronuken
Angels Auxiliary Cohort
#122 - 2015-08-13 14:03:40 UTC
I want to apologize on behalf of the player base on the disgusting behavior. No, really, there is no other way to put it other than an absolute, disgusting event on part of the player base. One that prides itself on being one of the most adult and "grown up" audience out of any other game community existing right now.

I appreciate what you guys are doing. Please don't let the toxicity and vitriol chip away at the passion you all have for this game.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#123 - 2015-08-13 14:06:47 UTC
iwannadig wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Moving jump fatigue from character based to ship based

    • No. Your entire system will be completely avoided by most of the [rich] players by simply switching the ship.

    I'm having a nerdrage attack.
    Explain!
    Would you please!
    How is that different!
    From the current state, when rich players fly the interceptor to the midpoint! And switch ship from interceptor to a capship!?

    I've asked this question 3 times in this thread already.
    Bocephus Morgen
    The Suicide Kings
    Deepwater Hooligans
    #124 - 2015-08-13 14:07:49 UTC
    CCP Mimic wrote:
    After seeing the community reaction to the jump fatigue round table we hosted yesterday evening, reading the comments both here and on Reddit, and having a bit of a retrospective with those involved this morning, we'd like to talk a little more about what went wrong yesterday, and how we can more effectively gather feedback from you all on what is very clearly an important issue for a large proportion of the community.

    CCP was eager to hold this round table as we wanted further feedback about the current (post Aegis Sov) impact that Jump Fatigue and the Phoebe changes were having on players, now that a month has passed since the new Sov system was released and people are starting to get to the true nature of these new mechanics. All of the devs involved in the round table have a vested interest in this particular aspect of the game. This feedback was to add to the ongoing development and discussions CCP are currently having with the CSM about Capital Ships and the issues that this portion of players are currently facing.

    We were seeking out player feedback at this early stage in the design phase, in order to acknowledge and mitigate player concerns whilst considering the changes we're looking to make to Capitals. Unfortunately we can't announce the proposed changes yet due to the fact that there are a lot of aspects of what we're looking to change. This happens during the early development of features, and can (and often does) cause a lot of frustration in the Community who are seeing a blank silent wall, rather than a large group of people going through the process of problem solving and solution building. We have been bringing the CSM into discussions surrounding the changes we're looking to make, and how that will affect players who own and fly capitals. We were hoping to bring the wider community into that process.

    Due to the fact we can't talk publicly about the capital changes we're looking into at this stage, most of the questions put to us could not be answered in a way that would satisfy player concerns about Fatigue, Sov or any of the other issues faced by Null Sec players that were brought to the table. Although we attempted to explain this point during the round table, repeating often that we could not make any announcements to such a select group of players (rather than the whole player base that could be reached in a devblog or official announcement channel) this simply caused further frustration for players, who perceived these vague responses as either not caring of player concerns, or inflexible in our views of how the game should be. A better format to this particular discussion could have been more direct questions from us regarding specific aspects of Jump Fatigue.

    Being unable to answer the very valid concerns that were brought to the Round Table with nothing but vague responses that are wrapped in NDA legalities is frustrating for devs too, and this resulted in the wrong tone being applied to the second half of this conversation. This is going to be a part of a wider discussion on communication and promoting more openness that CCP Falcon and CCP Leeloo wish to have with the CSM and CCP Seagull during CSM 10's first summit in September, along with changes to the CSM on the whole that will better suit the faster and more streamlined release cadence that we have now.

    We know that players are super passionate about Sov, Nullsec and piloting capitals, and it was never our intention to offend or further antagonize our players whilst discussing a very heated topic, one that we know needs revisiting and are working on. We were hoping to have a dialogue with players about the effects of Power Projection on their personal play style, now that further changes to the landscape of Null Sec have been made, in the form of Aegis Sov. Although it has been a year since Phoebe, it is just a short month since Aegis, and we thought that this was the earliest we could start this conversation with our players.

    With that in mind, we've been watching the comments both here on the official forums and on Reddit, and we are continuing our discussions with the CSM and continuing our efforts to take in player feedback and incorporate this into our designs for the game.

    If you have any Ideas or feedback, please add this to the forums here, as this input is a vital part of our ongoing development of EVE Online.


    I just listened to round table and would agree that it didn't go as well as planned. However, I think most of the fault lies in the structure. It seemed like the players were asking questions when it should have been the other way around. It would have been better if you guys asked the questions so that we could answer them with feedback.
    Aryth
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #125 - 2015-08-13 14:12:28 UTC
    I appreciate the Mimic post. Many of the issues with the roundtable yesterday were because it was branded incorrectly. It was not a Q&A but more a feedback gathering session. If player expectations had been set correctly going in there may not have been such hostility. Obviously, there still would have been a lot of hostility due to how impactful these changes have been.

    It is dangerous to limit the discussion to fatigue. Fatigue and Fozziesov are interacting to create a very toxic combination when it comes to content and ability to depart your home Sov for even very short periods of time. Groups like ours are about the only ones that can just due to sheer size and organization. How many organizations out there can PVP on 2 distance fronts simultaneously?

    People have seized on the Content or Sov meme and ran with it. While this might be unfair to Fozzie and the Five-O as that was not their intended statement, it has a major nugget of truth to it in practicality. There is no longer time or subscribers to hold to game development principals that are simply unfun for the majority of the players participating in them. Fatigue is far too harsh. Having no ability to "clear" it results in players just logging off rather than trudge through space to even use their own territory.

    I am not debating player behavior is right or wrong. The only thing that matters is players are leaving. Whatever you do needs to be seen as contributing to players ability to enjoy EVE for longer periods of gaming time and more often. Giving them a counter that locks them down they can see staring at them in the top left corner of the screen is the antithesis of that.

    If you do implement the capital mechanic try to add something that lets us clear fatigue in our capital. Giving players an out, even if cumbersome, is at least an out.

    Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

    Creator of Burn Jita

    Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
    knobber Jobbler
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #126 - 2015-08-13 14:12:58 UTC  |  Edited by: knobber Jobbler
    CCP Mimic wrote:


    Being unable to answer the very valid concerns that were brought to the Round Table with nothing but vague responses that are wrapped in NDA legalities is frustrating for devs too, and this resulted in the wrong tone being applied to the second half of this conversation.


    There is a very simple answer to this: Actually have a round table, not a question and answer session. It's only under NDA as long as you state it is. I do not see a problem with you guys stating right at the start this is a conversation, a discussion on ideas. Put forward some CCP ideas and then ask players what they think. That is the basis for a structured feedback session, that is what a round table actually is. Ask us questions, not the other way around. Listen to feedback.

    Drop the whole assumption that players will jump to conclusions or get mixed messages. The last time that happened is when Rise said something about supers becoming command ships, which understandably got people worked up because it's a totally stupid idea. However had he had a round table and said "hey guys, what do you think of concept x" and we all got back to him in a structured way, that would have been constructive and inclusive.

    For once CCP needs to just drop the whole we can't say X or Y because it's a secret and involve your customers. Yes, we're customers - viewing us as such would be breath of fresh air, not only from CCP but a gaming company in general. Many companies in many industries involve customers in design choice when building products, I have no idea why a games company would think any different. I've done my time in both publishers and development studios so I know it will seem odd but why not give it a shot? At this stage you have little to lose.
    Yroc Jannseen
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #127 - 2015-08-13 14:16:27 UTC
    Bocephus Morgen wrote:

    I just listened to round table and would agree that it didn't go as well as planned. However, I think most of the fault lies in the structure. It seemed like the players were asking questions when it should have been the other way around. It would have been better if you guys asked the questions so that we could answer them with feedback.


    I hate to be the I told you so guy but...

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5948332#post5948332
    Aurthes
    Shadow State
    Goonswarm Federation
    #128 - 2015-08-13 14:18:18 UTC
    CCP Mimic wrote:


    With that in mind, we've been watching the comments both here on the official forums and on Reddit, and we are continuing our discussions with the CSM and continuing our efforts to take in player feedback and incorporate this into our designs for the game.

    If you have any Ideas or feedback, please add this to the forums here, as this input is a vital part of our ongoing development of EVE Online.


    There seems to be good evidence that CCP doesn't consult the CSM on anything major (i.e., "gets thrown under the bus") until there is an upset player base. At that point, the CSM is called in for damage control. This was recently noted by Elise on one of the rage threads (he wasn't raging, but just asking about the roundtable since he missed it). Unfortunately, this also results in the CSM not being entirely supportive during these times, since they were brought in after decisions were made to deal with the aftermath.

    I think working with the CSM is a good idea, but I think overall, CCP should consider re-evaluating how they use the CSM. They are under a NDA, are smart people, and like most of us, have everything to benefit from a successful Eve. Their job is to help you better understand not only what the playerbase wants, but what it really needs.
    FrogMage
    Sniggerdly
    Pandemic Legion
    #129 - 2015-08-13 14:23:44 UTC
    I think people are missing the bigger picture here. It's not to do with the changes CCP make, but how the discussion of those changes if framed.

    Put short, CCP need to relax their NDA rules. THe CSm was a good step towards this, but CCP's NDA rules are seriously outdated.

    We all know that some of the best, game changing devs come from the playerbase. This is because the playerbase in eve online are some of the most intelligent, caring, and invested players of any game in the world.

    By hiding the discussion behind an NDA which is outdated, you end up losing a HUGE amount of valuable, free, and intelligent feedback.

    Think of it like this: a game moulded by its players into something they want to see is awesome, you get to make a game that makes you lots of money, and the community gets a game that not only they were a part of making, but actually want to play, players feel pride when they say something constructive that is taken into account. Hiding most of your available feedback behind an NDA SERIOUSLY effects how much you can improve your game in relations to the players who want to play it.

    I'm not saying we need to know how the company works, or every little detail, but letting us be involved in the creative process, even in the early stages of development, would be a HUGE boon to CCP's balancing and game development arsenal, and it would be completely free.

    I think the roundtable was an attempt at CCP to open this door to the player base, even if by only a crack. We need to frame this discussion around THAT, and try and improve that aspect, the communication, because eventually that will increase the improvements to game development exponentially.

    A community driven game, moulded into practicalities by CCP, is a game we all want to see. It's how eve works already, eve is driven by the community, and that's why we play it. Its what makes the game so unique. We need to include that more heavily in the development phase of the game.
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #130 - 2015-08-13 14:27:49 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • Move-Mode for Capitals for move ops (e.g. Transforming into move mode (24 hour process) reduces combat capacity to near 0)


    • Add mods like the T3Ds which can't be altered for XX hours.

    travel: reduce locked targets to 0, jumping boni
    combat: standard, "today" options

    Do we need a third option?
    MukkBarovian
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #131 - 2015-08-13 14:28:43 UTC
    Thanks CCP Mimic.
    Xenuria
    #132 - 2015-08-13 14:28:56 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Michael Pawlicki wrote:
    I very much like the idea of jump fatigue drugs. I would prefer to give them a slightly higher side effect chance, but that could be a very interesting industry, especially if the sites that have the materials for production are in 0.0 or 0.1 lowsec systems.


    One of the concerns with jump fatigue drugs is the fragmentation of fleets. Half the fleet is effected by serious side effects while the other half is fine.

    That would be the risk they take in order to force project.

    CSM 12 Candidate
    Rap Game CynoField
    Global Hebrew Banking Consortium
    Multi-Shekel Media Conglomerate LLC
    #133 - 2015-08-13 14:28:57 UTC
    The jump changes made the influence bubbles too low for sparsely populated nullsec but they are pretty damn perfect for lowsec. Any possibility of adding a bonus to jump range based on the security status of the systems?
    knobber Jobbler
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #134 - 2015-08-13 14:33:26 UTC
    Xenuria wrote:
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Michael Pawlicki wrote:
    I very much like the idea of jump fatigue drugs. I would prefer to give them a slightly higher side effect chance, but that could be a very interesting industry, especially if the sites that have the materials for production are in 0.0 or 0.1 lowsec systems.


    One of the concerns with jump fatigue drugs is the fragmentation of fleets. Half the fleet is effected by serious side effects while the other half is fine.

    That would be the risk they take in order to force project.


    It's no different to having JDCIV in a fleet where JDCV is the norm.
    Aurthes
    Shadow State
    Goonswarm Federation
    #135 - 2015-08-13 14:34:15 UTC
    CCP should re-look at scenarios on what they want to achieve to mitigate teleportation issue before fatigue. If we could focus on the overall goal, and use the tools we currently have, I think we could have a better solution. The current fatigue does address the problem, but it goes way overboard, it not only kills teleportation, it makes even normal moves painful.

    Ask these questions:

    1. What is a reasonable amount of time for someone to be able to cross the Eve universe in a capital?
    2. What ships/ship classes are we targeting?
    3. What important variables are there? (considering such variables as # of cynos required, the amount range of ships, possible mixes of gate + jumps, and the amount of fatigue)

    Program a simulation, using the information above to study a range of options, and then ask the CSM what they think to achieve the goal.

    I would much prefer jump fatigue to be back at the same range as before, but then adjust fatigue. That would still limit power projection, but significantly mitigate the hassle of moving. I think it should remain character based as opposed to ship based.

    Also, the Rorqual should have the same range as the JF. There has been no evidence people using it as a combat platform, as was the concern.
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #136 - 2015-08-13 14:36:26 UTC
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    I'm having a nerdrage attack.
    Explain!
    Would you please!
    How is that different!
    From the current state, when rich players fly the interceptor to the midpoint! And switch ship from interceptor to a capship!?

    I've asked this question 3 times in this thread already.

    Better get your meds.

    Contrary to popular believe, you can grab travel ceptors with multiple tools. If jump fatigue was ship dependent, you could jump from station to station without anyone being able to intercept you at all in the first place. That not many people commit to this kind of effort does not change the fact that it is possible.

    UI Improvement Collective

    My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
    davet517
    Raata Invicti
    #137 - 2015-08-13 14:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
    When you move people's cheese they're going to gripe. Your biggest mistake was preferring questions from high prestige entities who have big stakes in the status quo. There is no way around that. People are used to a specific way of "winning eve" that used to make sense, but doesn't anymore.

    Sorry, but I have to call out this "sov vs. fun" tear torrent. It's BS, full stop. If you make yourself unassailable, nobody is going to try to assail you. You're just going to sit there being unassailable, until you rot. The folks crying about "content or fun" thought that they were going to sit in NPC null space, and victimize anyone within their jump range who dared to try to take sov. Guess what? Nobody wants to play that game with you. So, you've got your region(s). Enjoy them, for as long as you want to sit there and hold onto them, but don't expect to do that and be mobile at the same time.

    These same folks are crying about a lack of "content", but that's just a euphemism for ganks, for the most part. They don't want content, they want to be able to ride in and gank someone lower down the food chain. i don't exempt my alliance from this criticism, by the way, but, I'm just a grunt, so i only speak for me, and my assessment of the situation.

    If you want "content" bigger and more insanely powerful isn't better anymore. The entities that are going to get "content" now are those who don't seem to be impossible to attack, or defend against. If you seem unbeatable, nobody is going to try. They don't have to anymore. Space is big again.

    The meta has changed. Figure out what the new meta is, and adapt.
    Alyxportur
    From Our Cold Dead Hands
    ORPHANS OF EVE
    #138 - 2015-08-13 14:43:32 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Michael Pawlicki wrote:
    I very much like the idea of jump fatigue drugs. I would prefer to give them a slightly higher side effect chance, but that could be a very interesting industry, especially if the sites that have the materials for production are in 0.0 or 0.1 lowsec systems.


    One of the concerns with jump fatigue drugs is the fragmentation of fleets. Half the fleet is effected by serious side effects while the other half is fine.


    How is this not exemplified worse in disparities of jump fatigue? Some fleet members have no fatigue, some have an hour, and some have 30 days and can't jump at all. Fragmentation of fleets exists already.
    Kendarr
    The Congregation
    RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
    #139 - 2015-08-13 14:48:40 UTC
    CCP Mimic wrote:
    After seeing the community reaction to the jump fatigue round table we hosted yesterday evening, reading the comments both here and on Reddit, and having a bit of a retrospective with those involved this morning, we'd like to talk a little more about what went wrong yesterday, and how we can more effectively gather feedback from you all on what is very clearly an important issue for a large proportion of the community.

    CCP was eager to hold this round table as we wanted further feedback about the current (post Aegis Sov) impact that Jump Fatigue and the Phoebe changes were having on players, now that a month has passed since the new Sov system was released and people are starting to get to the true nature of these new mechanics. All of the devs involved in the round table have a vested interest in this particular aspect of the game. This feedback was to add to the ongoing development and discussions CCP are currently having with the CSM about Capital Ships and the issues that this portion of players are currently facing.

    We were seeking out player feedback at this early stage in the design phase, in order to acknowledge and mitigate player concerns whilst considering the changes we're looking to make to Capitals. Unfortunately we can't announce the proposed changes yet due to the fact that there are a lot of aspects of what we're looking to change. This happens during the early development of features, and can (and often does) cause a lot of frustration in the Community who are seeing a blank silent wall, rather than a large group of people going through the process of problem solving and solution building. We have been bringing the CSM into discussions surrounding the changes we're looking to make, and how that will affect players who own and fly capitals. We were hoping to bring the wider community into that process.

    Due to the fact we can't talk publicly about the capital changes we're looking into at this stage, most of the questions put to us could not be answered in a way that would satisfy player concerns about Fatigue, Sov or any of the other issues faced by Null Sec players that were brought to the table. Although we attempted to explain this point during the round table, repeating often that we could not make any announcements to such a select group of players (rather than the whole player base that could be reached in a devblog or official announcement channel) this simply caused further frustration for players, who perceived these vague responses as either not caring of player concerns, or inflexible in our views of how the game should be. A better format to this particular discussion could have been more direct questions from us regarding specific aspects of Jump Fatigue.

    Being unable to answer the very valid concerns that were brought to the Round Table with nothing but vague responses that are wrapped in NDA legalities is frustrating for devs too, and this resulted in the wrong tone being applied to the second half of this conversation. This is going to be a part of a wider discussion on communication and promoting more openness that CCP Falcon and CCP Leeloo wish to have with the CSM and CCP Seagull during CSM 10's first summit in September, along with changes to the CSM on the whole that will better suit the faster and more streamlined release cadence that we have now.

    We know that players are super passionate about Sov, Nullsec and piloting capitals, and it was never our intention to offend or further antagonize our players whilst discussing a very heated topic, one that we know needs revisiting and are working on. We were hoping to have a dialogue with players about the effects of Power Projection on their personal play style, now that further changes to the landscape of Null Sec have been made, in the form of Aegis Sov. Although it has been a year since Phoebe, it is just a short month since Aegis, and we thought that this was the earliest we could start this conversation with our players.

    With that in mind, we've been watching the comments both here on the official forums and on Reddit, and we are continuing our discussions with the CSM and continuing our efforts to take in player feedback and incorporate this into our designs for the game.

    If you have any Ideas or feedback, please add this to the forums here, as this input is a vital part of our ongoing development of EVE Online.


    I do not believe lisening to the soundcloud that "anything went wrong". You guys answered everything as you could. Infact let me thank you for taking the time to attend these events and listen to the player base. I appreciate that you are working hard to find the ideal solution/balance to jump fatigue so Thank you CCP, please keep up the hard work.

    Zebra-Corp
    Skia Aumer
    Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
    #140 - 2015-08-13 14:50:32 UTC
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    I'm having a nerdrage attack.
    Explain!
    Would you please!
    How is that different!
    From the current state, when rich players fly the interceptor to the midpoint! And switch ship from interceptor to a capship!?

    I've asked this question 3 times in this thread already.

    Better get your meds.

    Contrary to popular believe, you can grab travel ceptors with multiple tools. If jump fatigue was ship dependent, you could jump from station to station without anyone being able to intercept you at all in the first place. That not many people commit to this kind of effort does not change the fact that it is possible.

    Alright, so the only factor that limits "ceptor->capship" style of power projection is a smartbombing battleship at gate warp-in. Sure, I totally agree.

    What I do not agree - is that you cannot interfere with the fleet jumping from station to station.
    1. You can kill the cyno.
    2. You can bubble the undock.
    3. You can set mobile cynojammer.