Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 41 post(s) |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm all in favour of limiting the ability to move more than half way across the galaxy in seconds - but it needs a bigger short range bubble IMO - anything upto ~7 lightyears should not be penalised IMO or its going to have a crushing impact on smaller entities and those doing solo/small group logistics i.e. buying a capital and moving it back to their wh or staging system.
Also really against capitals being able to use gates though mostly just because it seems wrong rather than any real reason. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
823
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
So basically the game is going to come down to who has the most noobie alts to burn and tidi the system til their capitals can arrive? |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
824
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 19:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - Cyno mass limits mean the alliance willing to create the most cyno alts wins, this is not a good thing to incentivize.
No. This is exactly what you want to incentivize. If a coalition wants to jump in a large fleet, you want them to have to send in an expeditionary fleet first, which is more vulnerable than just a single cyno. -Increase fitting/fuel requirements of cynos so insta-warp interceptors cannot fit/use them. -Get rid of jump fatigue and add jump disruption: For 1 minute after jumping through a non-cov-ops cyno, a ship cannot warp and cannot cloak. For 10 minutes after jumping through a cyno, a ship cannot light another cyno. -Do not allow cloaks and non-cov-ops cynos to be equipped to the same ship. Now you have means for small-gangs of players to attack power projection, and who cares about cyno alts.
It would actually work quite well if the cyno ship size had an impact on the size and number of ships being jumped in as an extreme example with supers/titans only able to jump to a carrier lit cyno :D and only say 2 supers per carrier cyno heh. So for say 20 supers you'd have to have 5 carriers sitting there for 10 minutes.
Downside to that would be that for a small entity owning a super or 2 they'd have to put a carrier on the line just for logistical movement of it. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
824
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Rowells wrote:is there any concern for seiged dreads hugging gates and then jumping at all or is this moot? Not that I don't like it but I'm curious.
Should be treated the same way as stations. I'll double-check tomorrow that it's set up correctly.
I'd assume you can hug gate or siege/triage fully aligned to the gate from about 50km, deagress, exit triage/siege cycle and jump and assuming the gate hasn't been backstopped with bubble spam (which encouraging would be a very bad thing) then jump to an exit cyno and most times escape.
|

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
824
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Removing the ability to jump gates and increasing the short range bubble where there is no or very little "fatigue" penalty to about 7.5ly might have half a chance of this working, anything else is going to have more negatives than positives in the end IMO. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
824
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong as its not an aspect of eve I'm overly familiar with - but this would mean you could camp a low->null gate (especially regional gates) with supers/dps thannies running remote energy reps so your not dropping below jump cap with almost full immunity other than having to wait out the aggression timer for jumping the gate? then if something came along you couldn't handle you'd just jump gate then jump to exit cyno? |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: If you're attacking a dread sitting sieged on top of a gate and you don't have tackle in place on the other side by the time his cycle is over, I'm not sure you really deserve the kill tbh.
Its not something I've huge experience with but a few times after undocking from a station and/or jumping out of a wh into lowsec with a capital I've managed to jump to a cyno before anyone could point me and I assume it would be even easier on a gate jump with the spread out range. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lando Cenvax wrote: My typical jump-distance is 7,4LY which I use for hauling stuff. This will not be possible anymore after this ******** change. At least not without another Cyno. My fuel-efficient carrier does 6,5LY without skills and now you want to nerf that down to 5LY AFTER skills? And no, as "the small guy" I can't afford a Jump Freighter.
Not having atleast a 7.5LY base range, low penalty bubble, is going to have a lot of unintended and very negative side effects.
I've also realised a couple of other issues with capitals being able to use gates, 1 of them quite a big one :D |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 21:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
Prt Scr wrote:it is late, I am half drunk and just read the blog, did I miss-read between the lines, but there will be changes to interdictors? As cap ships are being able to use the gates, is it a limit on bubbles dropped or will you need heavy interdictor with script to stop a cap ship? Or am I just more paranoid then normal?
I can see gates being bubble spammed to extremes as a normal thing rather than the moderate exception is is now - and even if they put limits on that its going to make any kind of regular null travel a complete pain.
|

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 21:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Two step wrote:Nys Cron wrote:WH corps will no longer be able to commit capitals to someone else's system because extracting them will be near impossible. No, this is dumb, and you should feel bad for saying it. Extracting capitals will work just fine, you might just need to wait a bit to move them around.
Imagine the other way around though - your seeding capitals in someone's system and have a WH connection in say lonetrek while the capital pilots you have online to get into that WH are down in say aridia and derelik... thats going to be awful. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 21:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:I have a couple of concerns about roaming capital ship fleets.
Carriers and Supercarriers can refit, in space, on demand
Carrier based doctrines will be able to easily switch their fits on the fly, between powerful damage setups and fast gate to gate travel. Carriers and supercarriers will actually be able to be frighteningly fast.
[Nyx, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Sentient Drone Damage Amplifier Sentient Drone Damage Amplifier Sentient Drone Damage Amplifier
Gist X-Type 100MN Microwarpdrive Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Ahremen's Modified Heavy Energy Neutralizer
Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II Capital Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
With high grade Ascendancies, this Nyx can warp at 4.2 AUs/second, and can enter warp in 10 seconds by pulsing the MWD for one cycle. If the ship is in any real danger, emergency jumping remains an option, and when working in tandem, they can refit on the fly to more survivable setups.
Ordinary carriers have the same capacity for high speed (as fast as Battleships into warp, as fast as cruisers while in warp) troublemaking. Being able to fly from stargate to stargate and refit while in space to any configuration at any time seems to be a little too powerful.
Am I correct when I say that players will be able to set their clone location to their starting system, no matter what?
Add in _that_ trick and gate to gate travel with capitals will be almost unstoppable, I actually want them to implement gate jumping now as its going to be hilariously broken. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 00:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Maraner wrote:Jeez the long term ramifications of these changes boggle the brain. Ice prices crashing, sov empires declining into small held fortresses, cap fleets jumping gates into fleet fights.. Lol the plus 1 scout archon.  Cyno jammed your system? so what... jump in through the gate, warp to the tower. The really exciting stuff is yet to come guys, the sov changes taken in context of these changes to cap mobility will be he real jaw dropper. Roaming fleets of RR carriers and battleships. hahahah Fantastic times ahead.
Carrier roams would be ludicrous - 100 man thanny fleet (ignoring smartbombs) could alpha capitals off the field and be fairly mobile. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
825
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 02:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:All you people crying about timers realise it's nowhere near as bad as you think. Over long distances it's actually more sensible to wait out your first fatigue timer fully rather than rapid jumping. Or if you set it up nicely, jump once. Take gates while the timer ticks down. Jump again Rinse & repeat mixing gates & jumps to create the fastest overall travel while not maxing out your timer ever.
Problem is this is just going to make the game a drag to play for people who are entirely unconnected to the reasons behind this mechanic being proposed, ultimately its an over reaching bandaid that is likely going to do more negative things for the game than it will positive. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
826
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
I find it a bit disconcerting that the fatigue timer is likely to bite people in the rear in future unforeseeable circumstances - thats not really good gameplay design. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
826
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ilaister wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
QFT, let small gang pvp live again.
Small gangs of carriers. On gates, being remote sebo'ed. Safe in the knowledge that they won't get hot dropped. Waiting for high sec scrubs to come through because they think that this change will make things better. I can't wait. This will be the age of the Carrier gate camp and blap dread local defense fleet. Til someone comes through any of the dozens of WHs within 5LY and cynos in on top of them yes.
If they do it on a gate with lowsec on the other side or a regional null gate theres a fairly high chance they can deaggress, jump the gate and then jump to an exit cyno without being caught. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
826
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 14:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
Raelaem Eudain wrote:WTB Triage Carrier's!!!
This change will force big alliances with sov to think twice before hot dropping 20 caps for a hurricane kill, or titan bridging 100 people on the the little cute merlin.
Think what this will do for the games economy... People will want more caps then they all ready have, the little guys (stop looking at me) can assist their 15 man BS Fleet with a triage knowing that any significant threat will be within 5 LY
Rooks and Kings can make more video's!!!! Though I did like the pipe-bomb, i liked your triage video more.
This will also force pilots and fleets that want to get to a destination consider using BS fleets again.
More caps will be wanted = economy boost More pilots wanting caps due to safer conditions (ME!!!) = economy boost More subcap fleets = economy boost
not to mention all the small alliances that want their own space
Now I read a lot of the tears so far. So u want to rat in Nyx's, and U want this and u want that. We all see how dead 0.0 is getting. People are just sitting in belts and grinding that isk. While good for your wallet, not good for economy.
Sounds like you can still do it but remember the days when subcaps meant "OH CRAP THESE GUYS MEAN SERIOUZ BISNEZ"
Means you will have to plan carefully and and use your past exp to keep your elite status of capital warfare, if you don't or fail to live up to your reputation then you are only proving that you abused something in the game that became easy.
Look at eve, everything about it is supposed to be hard, the learning curve is only for the brave of us to stick with it. If you have all ready invested this much time in the game, you will find new ways to dominate in your sov wars. I'm confident in that.
thx for reading my crap, sorry for the horrible grammar, and I was serious, I really want to buy some triage carriers cuz of this now.
See post below yours - subcap stuff won't increase - the minimum requirement to be relevant will be the ability to fly a carrier in 200+ man roving gangs that can RF structures in seconds with little effort or consideration - a 100 man thanny fleet can put out over 100K dps with sentries let alone fighters and have little fear of super/titan drops as they'd have plenty of heads up. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
826
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 01:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Nazri al Mahdi wrote: Outer Passage is 28 mids from Jita with the range nerf, and I need to make 3 runs per week. Be a sport and bring daddy an estimate of THAT, would you?
Sure. You hit a 5.5 hour jump timer at jump number 20 after 15 hours of travel, which would be a good time to take a break and get a nap. Once you wake up you can finish the run in less than an hour. If you're smarter, you can do 14 jumps in 3.5 hours and take a 2 hour break, come back and finish the run. But that would require smarts. Of course, you could probably do it in a lot fewer mids if you're willing to take a few gates. Paala - LXQ2-T makes a helluva difference in the total number of jumps needed. But of course you'd probably want someone to scout for you and clear the bubbles. But hey - shouldn't your PL overlords be willing to keep the chokepoints clear for you? After all you are paying them billions per month in rent...
By which point anyone who is working a day job has probably decided to play a game that throws less needless complications into day to day logistics... |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
830
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 19:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
Can't we just "localise" supercapitals (and make it riskier to use them outside of home territory), reduce their jump range, make it so that titans have to jump with the fleet they are bridging, tether supercapitals (supers, titans) to a local "Supercapital Maintenance Depot" which they can dock with (but not leave ship) and can log off or jump to directly when in their jump range (5-7.5ly or so) if outside of range ship stays in space when dc/logoff, limit the density possible for constructing them in nullsec and a few public lowsec ones (so they don't get spammed around to make long range reach possible) and time limit how often you can select which is your "home" depot, and so on and so forth :S
This whole thing seems a needless way of provoking players to spend more time checking out games like SC and ED :| |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
830
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 19:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Gwailar wrote:Rroff wrote:Can't we just "localise" supercapitals (and make it riskier to use them outside of home territory), reduce their jump range, make it so that titans have to jump with the fleet they are bridging, tether supercapitals (supers, titans) to a local "Supercapital Maintenance Depot" which they can dock with (but not leave ship) and can log off or jump to directly when in their jump range (5-7.5ly or so) if outside of range ship stays in space when dc/logoff, limit the density possible for constructing them in nullsec and a few public lowsec ones (so they don't get spammed around to make long range reach possible) and time limit how often you can select which is your "home" depot, and so on and so forth :S
This whole thing seems a needless way of provoking players to spend more time checking out games like SC and ED :| In one of CCP Greyscale's posts he said these limits are explicitly intended for all caps as well as supers.
Sure but something like that would be a good place to start IMO.
From a mostly un-invested perspective (I do wormhole space stuff) these changes look like largely souring the customer relationship at very much the wrong time given the competition from up and coming games at the moment - whether they need to happen or not (and personally I think its a unimaginative blunt instrument approach) I'm not sure the timing and nature of this is right at all.
EDIT: Infact from a wormhole perspective the changes would be great as it would allow provoking fights in null with capitals with far greater protection from supers or capital blobs being dropped on us and result in more people (targets) trying to run logistics through wormholes to avoid long jumps across null. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
832
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 15:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Bezdar22 wrote:this game is no longer players MMO..
tons of old player will leave game just coz of this changes...
From what I'm reading on the 'other' EVE forum sites, as many people are claiming to be coming back to the game because of these changes as there are here swearing they're going to quit. End result: No change in players subbed. Just the entitled leave and the ones that want a dynamic fun game come back. Mr Epeen 
Now wouldn't it be great if they could not only retain established players but also bring jaded players back. Taking what is essentially a blunt instrument approach to this problem is not going to achieve that. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
832
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 00:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
SanDooD wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Could someone point out the 'little guy' that is currently in deep null that these changes are going to bone over? Being part of a coalition automatically disqualifies an alliance of 'little guy' status by the way.
Anyone? Corporation(s) renting space from you or us (Period Basis comes to mind in our case). They are screwed. What's gonna happen is we'll probably see demand for renter space closer to low sec. Those poor guys in "deep" null are SOL. They will become even more dependent on their landlords now. At least that's what I think, I may be completely off target though.
Its not just entities like that - enterprising individuals/small corps that are highly mobile and taking opportunities where they can, etc. will be hit pretty hard.
The guy who had one of my thanatos before me used to do something like (not sure on exact details):
Alts in stealth bombers - scout out quiet lowsecs/null, etc. for mining - had a lot of timezones and so on mapped out. Jump thanny full of mining ships and/or black ops bridge alts to target system Do a bit of mining If someone came into local or he was done, swap the mining ships back to bombers and jump thanny out.
He'd be pretty screwed with these changes if he was still playing. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
832
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 01:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Athryn Bellee wrote:
Good because that is a horrible way to play an MMO.
Maybe so but not everyone is amused by the same thing or plays the same way. He seemed to find it satisfying though too much like hard work for my tastes. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 02:32:26 -
[23] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Moloney wrote:Ccp put the Damn fatigue on bot ship and pilot.
Are really that big a set of pussies that you cannot implement the change for power blocks as well as everyone else???
Wtf, they are already training and buying jump alts to taxi caps to the fight!! Carrying ship fatigue over repackaging is not possible at the moment, or so hinted Greyscale. Temporally binding the pilot to the ship should be doable, though, and as a bonus would prevent scamming through fatigued capitals who become sitting ducks after the buyer enters them.
Which is a horribly clunky duct tape fix. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 18:46:04 -
[24] - Quote
^^ Generally out of those who say they will quit in protest to changes only about 20% actually quit.
Given the noise coming out of many nullsec entities I think this idea is bordering on spectacularly backfiring - a lot of smaller entities are pulling out of their space and/or pulling out of their outlying systems and consolidating closer to home, a lot of big blocs are shuffling to consolidate their space with smaller groups about to be squeezed out as they can no longer reach out to entities that would previously help them. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 22:00:47 -
[25] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:You say that, but the thing is that this is phase 1 in a series of changes which I, for one, hope'll improve the game dramatically, and make the act of dropping caps/supers a more localized thing instead of a red light for the rest of the eve universe to converge on, say, B-R #2.j
If losing bitter vets who think caps and up are the only ships worth playing is what's needed to shake nullsec up properly, then I'm all for it, and it sounds like CCP are all for it too.
That is absolutely no way to develop a game though - you don't just throw players away because how they've been (legitimately) playing the game has become a problem.
Preventing super "helicoptering" around the galaxy in itself can be done far more elegantly using a variation of the pylon system* used in many games to enforce tactical deployment of super weapons but the answer to regular capitals sadly isn't so simple as they are used so widely that forcing those mechanics on them would have a huge negative incidental impact.
* Simplest way would be to tie supercapitals to the requirement of operating in range (say 7.5ly) of a "maintenance depot" - requiring the building of such depots in nullsec to be able to deploy supercapitals into a region - with the limitation of only being able to change which depot was supporting you say every few days (just as an example figure) - and you have to be in range of that depot to change to it. And some scattering of public ones around lowsec.
EDIT: As an aside depots should allow supers to dock but not to leave ship (as they'd have no medical/clone facilities) and from a "storyline" perspective purely serve as a support/refuelling facility. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 06:51:51 -
[26] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Sorry, smaller entities? What smaller entities, they all got absorbed into one of the two power blocks. Oh, I guess there is Provi still.
Lol.
Funnily enough the example I was going to give on checking dotlan had given up their space to provi holders by the end of July anyhow. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 11:46:46 -
[27] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: You say that, but I think you'll find that there's a lot more people resubbing (or going to be resubbing) once EVE starts having wars in nullsec again, even if it isn't the same old style of "dump all the caps into a single system, sit in sub-10% tidi for 5 hours and win/lose based on who brings the most people".
You can't develop a game to please everyone, you develop the game to please the majority, because that's the way you get the most money. It's also the way you get free advertizing, through word of mouth. And I don't want a game where you have to be in a capital or be useless.
Sure the net effect might work out positive for the game and player numbers and there is no denying its impossible to keep everyone happy but you (in general) should never be treating customers as disposable commodities (atleast that is my opinion) I acknowledge sometimes there is no option but to make sweeping and controversial changes (not to say I consider this one of those times).
Lord TGR wrote: Interesting idea, but it won't deal with the main problem for subcaps, which is normal caps making them more or less obsolete when caps are deployed in the right configuration, and it would also make for a sucky return for someone who's been unsubscribed for a year for reasons, only to come back to an EVE where the sov map looks radically different to when he left. So he's now left in hostile space, and maybe his old corp/alliance doesn't even exist.
I guess that could be argued as being an incentive for people to stay subscribed and active, but yeah, no.
Obviously going to be quite a few things to iron out with the idea (as far as null goes I only dabble on a couple of alts and have a generalised idea of how things work there at best) none the least handling player who've been away from the game for along period but I wasn't going to spend too long writing it up when its very unlikely to be utilised. Handling regular capitals is a far trickier matter due to the much wider useage of them outside the sphere of null and while I have some rough ideas again not really worth spending too much time on when CCP seem dead set on a different mechanism.
EDIT: One idea I was floating in another thread though it has several factors I don't have working knowledge on as to know how it would work out in reality was to make it so that carrier drones are essentially bonused to become "capital" class weapons - increase dps output by 50% but reduce rate of fire massively (and increase the alpha to get the dps) but apply titan style signature weapon scaling so that for instance with heavy drones and sentries they could only apply full damage to another capital (I can see some hate from people who PVE with sentries). Its a little arbitrary and might not go far enough. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
858
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 04:49:10 -
[28] - Quote
Telistra wrote:
I can some what understand this perspective. But remember, the DEVs said if they have to sacrifice some players for the better long term goal, then so be it.
Hope they didn't say that. No way to treat your player base and as gaming history has shown the consequences of it always catches up with a developer/publisher eventually. |
|
|