Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
334
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:22:00 -
[151] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
Yeah this is a good point, what about dat?! |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
That should not be allowed. CCP should change this before it goes live.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:24:00 -
[153] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:I don't really like the thought of Titan-bridged freighters working the same way after Phoebe as they do today. Transit logistics forms the industrial backbone of Nullsec Alliances and supercap production, and profoundly protects moongoo income streams (though the ability to defend quite so many moons is open to question).
Freighters, IMO, need to be left out of the equation to make this a meaningful nerf to coalition enablers. Supercaps look like they'll still be crazy powerful when all of this goes through, albeit easier to interdict along the way.
It seems like a terrible idea to keep giving modern Nullsec alliances the tools they need to import and export material in limitless quantity in the name of "smoothing out how terrible it is to do logistics." Logistics will never, ever, not be terrible. Players need their capacity to do bulk import and export of material reduced; it directly enables the larger coalitions to sustain nearly endless losses, which directly feeds into the n+1 gameplay that drives their formation. Please don't defang the Jump Drive Nerfs this badly, Greyscale! Keep Freighter Jump Fatigue high!
Quoting first post:
Quote:The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.
Veskrashen wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Also, to everyone who was wondering whether or not I listened, I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. Whether or not I agreed with the concerns was an open question, but I hope it was obvious from my posting that I was paying attention! *Some* of us are stronk enough neckbeards to do all 403 pages. And we don't even get paid for it! Solid changes, and while I would have preferred not to special-case JFs, I understand if was likely too much of a shock to nullsec logistics at this point. Good to see that you're looking at revisiting the issue as you continue to address nullsec industry. Question: Do the jump portal bonuses for covert cynos and the inustrial bonus for blockade runners stack? In other words, does bridging a Blockade Runner via a BLOPS BS generate 5% of the usual fatigue, rather than 10%? Might create some very interesting ninja logistics options.
We're leaning towards "yes" because it's more in line with how multipliers usually work in EVE, and because we don't believe it'll be worth the hassle to have a BO chain set up just to move the pretty small volumes you can get into BRs slightly more efficiently. Trivial to switch to non-stacking if we want, though.
PotatoOverdose wrote:Cool. Might also want to check this thread on reddit regarding super carrier projection with ascendancies and hyperspatial accelerators post-phoebe. Keep in mind that those super fits don't give up *too* much ehp given that you can swap the low slots back to combat fit fairly easily.
Ah, balls, I had a bullet written up for this and lost it along the way. Adding this to the OP:
Quote:We're also not overly concerned yet about HG Ascendency capital fleets, since such capital movement would be very vulnerable to disruption and because it relies on very rare items. If this becomes a widespread usage pattern we will likely take action, and we'll be keeping a close eye on everything surrounding capital movement after Phoebe.
(We suspect that gate bubbles will prove to be a larger problem than drag bubbles.)
Pandaest Bee wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Mixed feelings on this.
* Pretty sad to see JFs getting 10LY range. Their 5LY range allowed for some meaningful ability to disrupt incoming logistics. 10LY eliminates a lot of possibilities here. - Yes, but that logistics is already in too fragile a place to be able to reliably survive that disruption You mean to tell me you didn't just massively buff survivability of freighters and jump freighters? Feel free to revoke those changes if you've forgotten about them.
I don't mean the fragility of the ships, I mean the fragility of the sanity of the people flying them.
Fonac wrote:\O/ yay updates.
First of all, thank you for taking your time to read and reply with feedback, that was very very cool.
1. I still feel the black ops need a smaller fatigue, i realise that they may be used a transportation ship instead of combat, but they have a very high skill requirement, and only a handfull of people can use them. I've often had to jump several jumps, in order to get to my target, i know i could use gates, and i know that the whole "i'll just jump everywhere fast" mantra has to be nerfed, but still, i'll need to get back aswell. and this will now take hours! (still) Mobility means alot with these kinds of ships.. and even more so, if you use them for pve(which i've done extensively)
2. I actually kinda liked the low range of JF's this ment that 0.0 mining and all the industry that followed, would be viable and needed again. And that those who eventually ventured out and jumped stuff to an outpost, could really make some big isk. Another little note, is that the fatigue is kinda useless here, since you'll mostly do one jump a day max. The only real nerf i see here, is for black frog, that does this daily and muliple times a day...
Otherwise everything look good. I look forward to the changes.(ALOT)
Black Ops fatigue is a value we're happy to tune, within a reasonable range. Make a case for a number and we'll l... |
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
754
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
The industrial ship jump bridge change is one of the dumbest ideas they came up with. Remove that, and the rest is acceptable.
Hate csm trying to put in exceptions, loopholes and backdoors to this jump change. Yaay!!!! |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3348
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:25:00 -
[155] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
It's not a question of trust, it's a question of a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it. The goals of this change are pretty clear, and we're keen to follow up and ensure that we hit them over time. |
|
Gwailar
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:25:00 -
[156] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
Yet another example of why fatigue needs to generate at a constant rate but be applied differently on a per ship basis.
See previous discussion late in original thread. This and other posts. "Mmmmm. PoonWaffles."-á-á --Mittens the Cat |
Polo Marco
Four Winds
17
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:26:00 -
[157] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:
Did you like my joke?
Also have you considered increasing the ship maintenance bays of ships like Titans and SCs so that they fit more of a "logistical" role? I think if a titan could have a 20-50million m^3 ship maintenance bay it could start tweaking the role of the ship and make it more en vogue. It would allow an alliance to have a strategic asset in the Titan, have a subcap escort fleet to position the titan (or titans) deep into enemy space, and be able to base out of it instead of forcing every attacking foe to live in NPC null. So in this brave new world with 50million m^3 SMAs, an alliance that would have moved 250 carriers twice - jumping from NPC station to NPC station completely risk free - could instead move 10 Titans + an escort fleet of 200. Through gates. Loaded with billions of isk worth of ships. Think of how glorious that could be! Please I need this.
And don't forget to augment Titan clone vat bays too! Players in clones from these mega warships should get a +5 to all stats and a 50% damage increase.
Yeah Bayyybeee!!!!!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
864
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:27:00 -
[158] - Quote
Is trading the drone damage bonus on rorqs for 10LY max range in the interim, before you do a proper balance pass on rorquals, something you all are willing to do? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Obunagawe
413
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:28:00 -
[159] - Quote
Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations. |
Hendrick Tallardar
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
256
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:29:00 -
[160] - Quote
Techno Model wrote:Etrei Kordisin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Maybe these changes will accomplish something to break up the stagnation of null. With this watered down version it is hard to tell. Pretty much. I'm pretty disheartened to see the original idea "nerfed" in such a way. Logistics shouldn't be easy, the fact that no alliances in wars actually run out of ships goes to show very simply that logistics are far too easy. Attrition should be a thing. Being reduced to flying smaller/weaker ships due to lack of supplies should be a thing. Please, don't un-nerf bridges for anything, and don't give JFs 10LY. One of the things that made this awesome was the fact that moving things around would actually cause an element of risk; taking it back to 10LY eliminates that. It will protect PL's renter empire while allowing "elite pvp" to continue dropping black ops onto drakes. PLoebe update is pretty much confirmed now.
True story, once a week a PL member is randomly chosen to jump into our vault full of ISK and swim around in our renter money just like Scrooge McDuck does. LeeSsang. Never Forget. |
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:29:00 -
[161] - Quote
Obunagawe wrote:Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations.
I don't agree with this to be honest. They can be parked in a CSMA. CCP just needs to fix the role/rights thing.
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:31:00 -
[162] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:... if it is, we'll just nerf it.
That put a little smile on your face, too eh? :P
I like the attitude, I hope you tackle the surrounding issues with the same energy for the next steps we need to take to get rid of large coalitions. Just make sure there are enough options and incentives to get rid of the current status quo. |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:32:00 -
[163] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Jump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction.
CCP Greyscale, you Sir have just shown you are a professional! Waiting-game can now be handled. Nice work! |
Etrei Kordisin
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:32:00 -
[164] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time. It's not a question of trust, it's a question of a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it. The goals of this change are pretty clear, and we're keen to follow up and ensure that we hit them over time.
Yes, it is entirely viable in practice to use ships that cost ~2m isk and an hour of skill training in order to avoid fatigue. The only slightly tricky part involved is having two caches of ships; which I am sure you will agree is no issue at all for alliances. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
322
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:32:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Quoting first post: Quote:The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game.
Well... where do you want nullsec industry to be? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:32:00 -
[166] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Querns wrote:Mixed feelings on this.
* I am really happy that non-combatant hauling ships are getting the 90% fatigue reduction -- that is something I had been pushing for and I'm happy you guys saw the light on that. Maybe extend this to mining ships, too? * Pretty sad to see JFs getting 10LY range. Their 5LY range allowed for some meaningful ability to disrupt incoming logistics. 10LY eliminates a lot of possibilities here. * Rorquals not getting the 10LY treatment is a little weird. Care to elaborate on why only JFs get the extra range? I agree with this. Bumping jump freighters to 10 enables a heck of a lot of room for selling your garbage to Jita, but I get the issue of multiple cyno alts and stuff.
why should anyone be happy with EVE becoming anymore a Game of Alts than it already is. And that is all the 5 LY range was going to result in. We should want a game that isn't about having 7 accounts with 10 cyno alts and a bunch of niche characters that get logged in and out.
Totally understand the desire to "disrupt incoming logistics", which more often than not translates into nothing more than "gank a freighter" rather than actual interdiction of logistics. I'd be pretty surprised if many kills related to logistics had anything at all to do with disrupting logistics. |
Quincy Thibaud
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:33:00 -
[167] - Quote
These changes look very reasonable, but while you are at it with Blackops Battleships, how about bringing the mass of the ships down more in line with the Marauders or T1 battleships?
|
Vhaine Vhindiscar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:33:00 -
[168] - Quote
The whole fatigue thing still sounds over complex, opaque, annoying to implement, and frustrating to track. Now you're having to go back and make exception after exception. I'd really just prefer you take the entire concept back to the drawing board. Nerfing combat capital jump drives and adding a jump timer just sounds so much easier then all of this. I feel like 5 years from now someone will just be cleaning all this messy crap up. It's just uselessly complex for what it offers. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
476
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:37:00 -
[169] - Quote
Most of these changes look "ok".
The main one however:
Quote:GÇóJump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction. This represents a slight range reduction compared to TQ, so some cynos will need to be repositioned, but otherwise leaves them largely alone.
Completely undoes a lot of the good that the original changes promised. AFK remote empires online goes from "completely untenable" to "business as usual" in one single change. The roars of approval from GS should be sign enough that, if the aim is upsetting the status quo, this change is a bad one.
I would be interested in why CCP felt it necessary to completely neuter this change. I get that 5LY was too punitive to logistics and left too many regions out of reach, but 10LY with 90% fatigue reduction is practically business as usual.
Please could CCP consider dropping the 90% fatigue reduction from Jump Freighters as the tradeoff for this change. Force players to make a meaningful choice - Bridge a freighter or some transports 5LY with 90% fatigue reduction, or Jump a JF 10LY but only get to do it once or twice before fatigue becomes a real issue.
Otherwise what we will see is what we currently see - JFs and bridge networks meaning logistics (meaning fuel and munitions) can be provided anywhere in eve very quickly risk free. Forcing JFs to use the occasional gate was going to make this aspect of eve so much more interesting, but now that is a thing of the past.
The idea that JFs are a friend to nullsec industry is a curious one - surely the ease of transport of materials from Jita in JFs is the single biggest reason there ISNT any nullsec industry? |
Aerich e'Kieron
Snuff Box
86
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:37:00 -
[170] - Quote
I love the changes otherwise, but I can't believe they caved and all-but exempted JFs to any hard changes.
What a waste.
It just sucks that even though you say you're not happy with nullsec industry and are looking to change it, you somehow manage to decide to revert the changes that would have helped, to be nothing more than a very minor inconvenience, remove basically any extra risk that may have came with the original proposal, and slow them down hardly at all.
Basically, leaving them not significantly effected by this. A slight slap on the wrist as if to say "We watching you, even if we we're not going to do anything!"
It's not just 5ly vs 10ly. That doubled distance, DRASTICALLY changes the ease at which you can move around the map. 5ly would have actually made the topology of the map hugely more significant and altered routes to reflect that. 10ly they're basically keeping the routes they had before the change, with maybe a few extra cynos.
If you're going to keep the 10ly range, you should have cut their fatigue reduction bonus to 50%.
Jump range is the radius of a sphere. 10ly is significantly more coverage than 5ly even apart from the map. |
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
387
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:38:00 -
[171] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Quoting first post: Quote:The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. It *is*, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game. Well... where do you want nullsec industry to be?
Supplying asylums with fresh patients, presumably. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
Greyscale, the rest doesn't need to happen. The jump freighter range change, ok that's fine.
Everything else doesn't need to happen, as you are backwards adding power back into a system that you have not even tried yet.
Follow your own basis for game scaling. Remove the rest of the changes, except the jump freighter one, and test to see what happens.
There's no need to set scaling for fatigue per ship, as people are merely trying to add in exceptions to the jump changes to get the game back to business as usual.
Jump freighter change, ok.
The rest, is not needed. Yaay!!!! |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:40:00 -
[173] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Most of these changes look "ok". The main one however: Quote:GÇóJump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction. This represents a slight range reduction compared to TQ, so some cynos will need to be repositioned, but otherwise leaves them largely alone. Completely undoes a lot of the good that the original changes promised. AFK remote empires online goes from "completely untenable" to "business as usual" in one single change. I would be interested in why CCP felt it necessary to completely neuter this change. I get that 5LY was too punitive, but 10LY with 90% fatigue reduction is practically business as usual. Please could CCP consider dropping the 90% fatigue reduction from Jump Freighters as the tradeoff for this change. Force players to make a meaningful choice!
Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5480
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:40:00 -
[174] - Quote
Going to wait till tonight to mull these changes over. Dentist drugs are unwise for posting. The Paradox |
Overlord Invictus
The Graduates Forged of Fire
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:42:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Here, let me quote a little snippet of the blog that you might've missed:
so basically the line you're towing is we cannot critique the changes because if we do your retort is that there are more changes on the way that may or may not quell your issues, but unfortunately for you, you will not know it until you're chained down and lubed up? |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
663
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:42:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tikitina wrote:Obunagawe wrote:Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations. I don't agree with this to be honest. They can be parked in a CSMA. CCP just needs to fix the role/rights thing. Especially since moving station - station is what makes JFs so hard to interdict. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to allow risk-free movement for supercapitals. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
476
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:42:00 -
[177] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc.
Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety? |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2940
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:43:00 -
[178] - Quote
Shuttles have a hauling role according to ISIS, does that mean they'll be getting the fatigue reduction as well? |
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
409
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:45:00 -
[179] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Marius Noragol wrote:Logistics would be one thing that would create a lot of content. I was picturing forming fleets to escort a convoi of freighters and other fleets jumping in to gank and kill said freighters. This is likely coming down the pipe, but apparently according to CCP nullsec industry won't be able to cope in the 4 weeks between now and the proposed changes. Fortunately, given the 6 week cycle, CCP can impose any changes they choose in 6 more weeks. Hell, they could even progressively nerf JF range patch by patch - say 10LY now, then 8, then 6.5 and finally 5. That would give folks plenty of time to adjust and allow nullsec industry to ramp up more slowly.
There's no smooth progressive nerfing of JF range, anywhere under 10 will cut off Stain and Drone regions entirely while leaving (i think) all other regions mostly intact. The map just wasn't designed for sub-10 ly jumps. Such a change would be simply unfair to some of the existing inhabitants.
Also freighters have no resists so keep in mind that they are basically indefensible against even small BC fleets.
It basically will amount to scout, go/no go. Engagements will be even much more so avoided than most engagements in EVE are.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
663
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:46:00 -
[180] - Quote
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:It just sucks that even though you say you're not happy with nullsec industry and are looking to change it, you somehow manage to decide to revert the changes that would have helped, to be nothing more than a very minor inconvenience, remove basically any extra risk that may have came with the original proposal, and slow them down hardly at all.
Basically, leaving them not significantly effected by this. A slight slap on the wrist as if to say "We watching you, even if we we're not going to do anything!" I wish they would have been able to do it all in one go, but CCP has better access to the data than we do, and better access to the guys that actually run the null blocs. I'm betting that things were de-nerfed because of that. I'm also pretty confident that it had a lot more to do with nullsec resource availability than anything else - CCP Greyscale's OP in this thread clearly stated that they're not happy with how nullsec logistics is currently done, but that systems aren't in place that would have allowed nullsec to function with a 5LY JF.
It sucks, and it really sucks that those of us who were most excited about the implications of such a severe logistics nerf got their shiny toy taken away. It also means that they can't ***** when the changes DO come through.
It'll happen, just ain't happening now. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |