| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.01 22:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Quote:ShahFluffers wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Exactly, the current concept of living in 0.0 needs to be revised. Of course, if you like current 0.0 very much, just say "we like 0.0 as is, no need for these changes, period."  Revised in such a way that it encourages people to stay in one general area Yes. Encourages multiple smaller entities distributed all across EvE, every one of them fighting with their neighbors, as opposed to a few megablobs that easily wage war at the other end of the galaxy. And, of course, encourages, but does not confine them.
Alternativley, encourages massive blobs surrounded by buffer pets. No enemy roam would make it through the buffer pets without running out of fuel, so your billion isk tengu would be safe to run sanctums all day long.
Quote:ShahFluffers wrote: and create more logistical headaches if anyone wants to actually do something?
No. Create more logistical headaches for anyone who want to blob and for anyone who has blued everyone and his sister 50 jumps in any direction. And that's Good (tm).  I like that you see the same implications from my proposal as I do.  [/quote]
Yes. Create more logistical headaches for anyone who doesn't live right next to empire, where they'll be able to get fuel from easier, or for anyone who likes to roam, to hotdrop, to play around in bombers, hacs, recons, anything bigger than a rifter.
I like to see that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Also, why, exactly, is having friends a bad thing? |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.01 22:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote: Also, why, exactly, is having friends a bad thing?
Because you can't shoot them. 
PS. Apropos, thank you for voicing your concerns. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.01 22:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Danika Princip wrote: Also, why, exactly, is having friends a bad thing?
Because you can't shoot them.  PS. Apropos, thank you for voicing your concerns.
I see you've never been on a shoot blues op. |

DeftCrow Redriver
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 06:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
I doubt your proposal would contribute anything relevant to your aforementioned goals.
1. It discourages going solo. Especially over long distances. => If you use one account, you can't bring a fuel tanker with you by definition, unless your heart tells you to solo in a battle fuel tanker. Therefore, you will be limited in either fuel range or ship type. If you choose to get into expensive ship types anyway, you may be trapped between hostile gates in said expensive ship. => If you use more than two, you still won't want to swap a combat ship with a fuel tanker.
2. It discourages going in groups smaller than a certain critical mass.
Suppose an average deep space tanker can support 25 T1 BCs for the duration of a roam. (75 jumps, a total of 5000 AUs because of warp in/out maneuvers.) In this case, the critical mass of fleet size would be 25 T1 BC equivalents per tanker. If your fleet consumes less than 25 T1 BC equivalents, the remaining fuel capacity gets wasted, similar to unused fitting slots. The waste in fuel capacity would become more pronounced in small gangs (less than half tanker equivalents), so small gangs would have to make a choice of self-penalization; => Bring a tanker instead of a combat ship. => Don't bring a tanker, but downgrade ship classes. (T1 Cruisers instead of T1 BC / T2 Cruiser / Command Ships) => Don't bring a tanker, maintain ship classes. Risk losing mobility and getting trapped between hostile gates.
In the meantime, larger fleets(blobs, more than two tanker worths) would simply delegate fuel hauling duties to the least experienced/skilled members(analogous to unskilled manual labor), thus losing relatively less combat effectiveness compared to small gangs.
3. Malcanis' Law. Anything that tries to reduce the penalties on small gangs would benefit larger gangs much more, thus defeating the purpose of introducing "warp fuel" in the first place.
Therefore, not supported. |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 09:44:00 -
[35] - Quote
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:
1. It discourages going solo. Especially over long distances.
It does not discourage going solo more than it discourages going in blobs. In fact it indirectly encourages going solo - you don't have to wait for gang members to come (slowly) from across the region and your targets are slow to get reinforcements.
Quote: you may be trapped between hostile gates in said expensive ship.
I don't understand. How you can be trapped in a way that you can't be trapped now?
Quote: 2. It discourages going in groups smaller than a certain critical mass.
Suppose an average deep space tanker can support 25 T1 BCs for the duration of a roam.
Perhaps it would have such effect, perhaps not. It's not really interesting and I won't discuss it, because I have never proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 25 T1 BCs for 5000AU.
I proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 3-4 BS for 50% increase in range, that's 200AU worth of BS fuel, let's say BCs have half the BS consumption, therefore 400AU of BC fuel, almost, but not quite doubling the range of a single BC.
Perhaps these numbers can be increased, but nowhere near supporting 25 BC for 75 jumps.
Quote: 3. Malcanis' Law. Anything that tries to reduce the penalties on small gangs would benefit larger gangs much more, thus defeating the purpose of introducing "warp fuel" in the first place.
If you ask Malcanis, you may find that he has very similar attitude regarding slowing down ship movement across EVE. |

DeftCrow Redriver
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 15:05:00 -
[36] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote: It does not discourage going solo more than it discourages going in blobs. In fact it indirectly encourages going solo - you don't have to wait for gang members to come (slowly) from across the region and your targets are slow to get reinforcements.
A well trained blob can simply bring a fuel tanker along as if it is bringing another fleet command ship. Solo pilots can't do that, by definition.
Quote: I don't understand. How you can be trapped in a way that you can't be trapped now?
A hostile and well fueled blob, warping at 3~3.6 AU/s (Interceptors at 9~16 AU/s, and in case of 0.0, Interdictors at 6 AU/s), outmaneuvering the empty solo pilot/gang crawling at 0.2~0.5 AU/s. The only way not to go down in this case would be to keep running rolling safes until the next DT comes.
Quote: Perhaps it would have such effect, perhaps not. It's not really interesting and I won't discuss it, because I have never proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 25 T1 BCs for 5000AU.
Numbers are just numbers in this stage. I simply used it to make the analysis more quantitative. (Your numbers are severely limiting as others have stated before, but that's not important either.)
Still, small gangs of less than 10 have to pay an arm to bring a tanker because each member counts, while larger groups can keep their combat effectiveness by delegating fuel hauling duties to non-combatants / less experienced pilots. Can you explain how this trend encourages small gang activities?
Quote: If you ask Malcanis, you may find that he has very similar attitude regarding slowing down ship movement across EVE.
Then you can simply cite his opinion. The burden of persuasion lies onto you. |

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
68
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 15:58:00 -
[37] - Quote
Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:14:00 -
[38] - Quote
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:Karim alRashid wrote: It does not discourage going solo more than it discourages going in blobs. In fact it indirectly encourages going solo - you don't have to wait for gang members to come (slowly) from across the region and your targets are slow to get reinforcements.
A well trained blob can simply bring a fuel tanker along as if it is bringing another fleet command ship. Solo pilots can't do that, by definition.
A well trained blob must first be assembled from individual pilots. It does not just appear out of the thin air. Once a blob is assembled, of course, a solo pilot will have the same chance as today.
Quote:Quote: I don't understand. How you can be trapped in a way that you can't be trapped now?
A hostile and well fueled blob, warping at 3~3.6 AU/s (Interceptors at 9~16 AU/s, and in case of 0.0, Interdictors at 6 AU/s), outmaneuvering the empty solo pilot/gang crawling at 0.2~0.5 AU/s. The only way not to go down in this case would be to keep running rolling safes until the next DT comes.
Yes and the well fueled solo pilot/gang outmaneuvering a hostile and empty blob. It works both ways.
|

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:Quote: Perhaps it would have such effect, perhaps not. It's not really interesting and I won't discuss it, because I have never proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 25 T1 BCs for 5000AU.
Numbers are just numbers in this stage. I simply used it to make the analysis more quantitative. (Your numbers are severely limiting as others have stated before, but that's not important either.) Still, small gangs of less than 10 have to pay an arm to bring a tanker because each member counts, while larger groups can keep their combat effectiveness by delegating fuel hauling duties to non-combatants / less experienced pilots.
No, the proportion of required fuel support is the same regardless of gang size.
Quote: Can you explain how this trend encourages small gang activities?
The small gang is encouraged, respectively, that blob is discouraged at the stage before and at forming, not that my proposal somehow allows you to solo pwn a blob, once the said blob is formed.
Forget the current situation, when pilots idle in a single capital system. This is due to the ease of movement - people can quickly assemble from their usualratting/mining/whatever grounds to the capital and can also quickly disperse to their usual places for making money from the capital.
Instead, consider - you have 20 pilots in 20 systems ratting, 10 miners in this system, 10 more in that system, 5 people exploring in random places, 5 doing a plex here, 7 doing a plex there, 2 following an escallation somewhere, 10 hauling stuff from empire, 20 fueling POSes and bridges, 10 camping a gate over there ...
If you're gonna wait for all of them to assemble ... well good luck.
On the other hand, the same applies to your red neighbours, they aren't likely to form a defence blob very quickly, so why don't go with whatever you can assemble, instead of waiting a hour for the blob to form?
And there's a second aspect, it's not only numbers, but also power. In my proposal, forming a heavier blob is discouraged by limiting its range, compared to a lighter blob.
|

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us.
Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion.
|

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
68
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:20:00 -
[41] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us. Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion. What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?
Well, let's put it this way... when I enter K-space and find a hole 20 from Jita, that's a good day depending on how many lows are between me and high. I've gone 30 or more simply because the opportunity to do so was there.
A hole 6 from Jita... that's a party waiting to happen! Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us. Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion. What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel? Well, let's put it this way... when I enter K-space and find a hole 20 from Jita, that's a good day depending on how many lows are between me and high. I've gone 30 or more simply because the opportunity to do so was there. A hole 6 from Jita... that's a party waiting to happen!
I will have to repeat: What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel?
Perhaps you shouldn't go to Jita? WIth my proposal, it's likely more market hubs to develop - the harder to travel, the more likely people to buy and sell locally.
Also, I have specifically addressed the issue of logistics - the transport ships retain their current mobility for the most part. It should be rather obvious for anyone that cares to read the proposal and the discussion thread, that the proposed changes are directed mostly to combat ships.
Even considering that you escort your cargo ships through lowsec, still the movement of the fleet will be limited by the movement speed of the cargo ships, which would be the same as now.
|

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
68
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Crappy idea. Wormholers regularly travel what would seem like insane distances to many simply to get stuff to market and bring needed items back. This just adds added and unnecessary cost to us. Would you care to elaborate? Because in this form it's a crappy opinion. What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel? Well, let's put it this way... when I enter K-space and find a hole 20 from Jita, that's a good day depending on how many lows are between me and high. I've gone 30 or more simply because the opportunity to do so was there. A hole 6 from Jita... that's a party waiting to happen! I will have to repeat: What is "insane distance" and what ships do you use to travel? Perhaps you shouldn't go to Jita? WIth my proposal, it's likely more market hubs to develop - the harder to travel, the more likely people to buy and sell locally. Also, I have specifically addressed the issue of logistics - the transport ships retain their current mobility for the most part. It should be rather obvious for anyone that cares to read the proposal and the discussion thread, that the proposed changes are directed mostly to combat ships. Even considering that you escort your cargo ships through lowsec, still the movement of the fleet will be limited by the movement speed of the cargo ships, which would be the same as now.
It's added expenses for no benefits whatsoever. Fortunately, they'll also not go and change every ship in the game to implement this, so let it die the inglorious death it deserves. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 16:34:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:It's added expenses for no benefits whatsoever.
Thank you for your opinion.
|

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 19:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:DeftCrow Redriver wrote:Quote: Perhaps it would have such effect, perhaps not. It's not really interesting and I won't discuss it, because I have never proposed a deep space tanker to be able to support 25 T1 BCs for 5000AU.
Numbers are just numbers in this stage. I simply used it to make the analysis more quantitative. (Your numbers are severely limiting as others have stated before, but that's not important either.) Still, small gangs of less than 10 have to pay an arm to bring a tanker because each member counts, while larger groups can keep their combat effectiveness by delegating fuel hauling duties to non-combatants / less experienced pilots. No, the proportion of required fuel support is the same regardless of gang size.
If you have ten guys, putting one in a tanker is going to have a much, much bigger effect than if you have a blob. In a blob, you're going to have enough people who have enough alts to fly the tankers without taking a combat pilot. In a small gang, this is less likely.
Quote:Quote: Can you explain how this trend encourages small gang activities? The small gang is encouraged, respectively, that blob is discouraged at the stage before and at forming, not that my proposal somehow allows you to solo pwn a blob, once the said blob is formed. Forget the current situation, when pilots idle in a single capital system. This is due to the ease of movement - people can quickly assemble from their usualratting/mining/whatever grounds to the capital and can also quickly disperse to their usual places for making money from the capital. Instead, consider - you have 20 pilots in 20 systems ratting, 10 miners in this system, 10 more in that system, 5 people exploring in random places, 5 doing a plex here, 7 doing a plex there, 2 following an escallation somewhere, 10 hauling stuff from empire, 20 fueling POSes and bridges, 10 camping a gate over there ... If you're gonna wait for all of them to assemble ... well good luck. On the other hand, the same applies to your red neighbours, they aren't likely to form a defence blob very quickly, so why don't go with whatever you can assemble, instead of waiting a hour for the blob to form? And there's a second aspect, it's not only numbers, but also power. In my proposal, forming a heavier blob is discouraged by limiting its range, compared to a lighter blob. [/quote]
Except that people won't spread out like that. They'll be within a JB or two of the capital system, or they'll keep an alt there, or just jump clone. You'll still have people like me who don't rat, mine, plex, explore etc too.
And as for the same applying to the reds, well, why is that a good thing? What benefit would this have to the guys who fly out into red space looking for good fights? The guys who enjoy spanking home defence fleets, or who want something more challenging than a guy who logs out, docks or hides in a pos when reds get within five jumps? Why spend serious isk on fuel when you an just go and play a game that doesn't actively punish you for attempting to do something until the reds get bored and/or run out of fuel? |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 19:41:00 -
[46] - Quote
Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.
We already know that you don't like the proposal. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 20:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.
We already know that you don't like the proposal.
And we already know that you outright refuse to listen to anyone pointing out it's obvious deficiencies, so let's both shitpost together :) |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
50
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 20:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Go rant elsewhere if you ain't got anything constructive to say.
We already know that you don't like the proposal. And we already know that you outright refuse to listen to anyone pointing out it's obvious deficiencies, so let's both shitpost together :)
Not empty quoting. "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |

Ka'Dulin Hareka
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 20:45:00 -
[49] - Quote
This proposal is bad and you should feel bad for making it. |

DeftCrow Redriver
Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 21:21:00 -
[50] - Quote
Quote: Yes and the well fueled solo pilot/gang outmaneuvering a hostile and empty blob. It works both ways.
Then please explain how you would properly fuel yourself, when you are in hostile territory, while using only one account. (Hint: If you use more than one account, it's no longer solo.) |

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 21:34:00 -
[51] - Quote
DeftCrow Redriver wrote:Quote: Yes and the well fueled solo pilot/gang outmaneuvering a hostile and empty blob. It works both ways.
Then please explain how you would properly fuel yourself, when you are in hostile territory, while using only one account.
Obviously, you won't be able (or it won't be easy) to refuel yourself when you're in hostile territory. Just like you won't be able (or it won't be easy) to restock ammo, paste, get repairs, unload loot ...
Why do you presume that you're entitled to that?
Of course, same applies to hostiles on your territory.
Like I said, it works both ways.
|

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 21:38:00 -
[52] - Quote
In summary, do not consider "fueled warp" the default state.
The default state is painfully slow warp and bigger EvE.
The fuel is merely there as a little remedy.
|

Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.02 21:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
Gonna stop writing now, because trolling has become excessive.  |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
50
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 00:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:In summary, do not consider "fueled warp" the default state.
The default state is painfully slow warp and bigger EvE.
The fuel is merely there as a little remedy.
When something that you use every time you undock is given the option of having "being better" with a bit of ISK... especially when "better" = you can outmaneuver anyone who doesn't use/have it... it stops becoming optional.
And again... smaller groups will have more options than bigger groups in amassing the resources necessary to stockpile/get ISK for it. "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |

Mara Villoso
Big Box
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.06 14:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Just what eve needs: more micromanagement and logistical nightmares
Most definitely not supported. |

Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 12:27:00 -
[56] - Quote
Not supported.
It's hard enough to get logi pilots for an op can you imagine trying to find tanker pilots. |

uglybass
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 16:54:00 -
[57] - Quote
Horrible idea, 1) this would just generate massive upperhand to defending party owning stations nearby 2) I guess, everybody would just use "slow warp" until you really need to use fuel (atleast near to objective area) 3) hauling stuf (even in empire) would be a real pain (docking every now and then takes time) 4) capital ships..... 5) people would hunt for the fuel hauler only, leaving rest of the fleet middle of nowhere for lulz 6) RvB is for fun easygoing small ship stuff, join :) 7) manymanymany more reasons
BC/BS arent that expensive anyway + fight isnt over in 15 secs
|

Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 21:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:tl;dr Ships require fuel to warp, industrial and T1 frigs require very little fuel, battleships require lots of fuel. *stuff follows* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 This about sums up how I think most everyone feels about this idea...
Micromanaging fuel would only make this game such a pain in the a$$ that no one would want to play. It's bad enough we have to keep ammo counts, when many other games just assume you have bullets. |

Hobogear
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 22:45:00 -
[59] - Quote
I like the idea of fuel, but not as a restrictive measure. Ships use fuel so i would be more of a fuel bay and a industrial item that could be harvested. Fuel would be cheap and abundant. Small isk sink. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 01:33:00 -
[60] - Quote
Hobogear wrote:I like the idea of fuel, but not as a restrictive measure. Ships use fuel so i would be more of a fuel bay and a industrial item that could be harvested. Fuel would be cheap and abundant. Small isk sink.
Hint: if the isk goes to another player, it's not an isk sink. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |