|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 20:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
The thing i was starting to draw immediately was a simple 'mobile bridging system' based on the black ops. If i can draw that i wonder if anyone else sees it as well. Its like with that 50% bonus for the Black ops bridging others at least half of the original announced changes is gone already again. Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:
Were you seriously planning to invest tens of billions into local production for just 10-100 guys in your far-away region? That seems irrational from a business perspective. You'd need hundreds of BPOs and huge stockpiles of lots and lots of different materials to be self-sustaining.
Tbh maybe I just don't understand the vision of self-sustaining 0.0 industry but seems like the ROI would be so bad that it would still be better to do logistics no matter how difficult it is, at least for some stuff. And then you'd just bring everything you need anyway.
This is what we 'others' complain about - the changes where opening up for more diverse gameplay again- with the current way only one way to play is feasible. ROI is not always measured in isk you know - there are actually players who do things just because they can be done - not necessarily because they are best isk per "insert favourite time length here".
If i would just speak for myself - and i know i am not the only one anyways - then i rather manufacture my ass of for no isk at all but for a real purpose that might support some actual group effort. Same goes for anything you might imagine - its not only shooting at things - even if many people still seem to believe that. ROI can also be measured in 'i can deliver everything the locals need' - it just depends on what your investment was meant for. With current logistics the gameplay of 'being self-sufficient' has been basically deleted. Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 21:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Dwissi wrote:Dream Five wrote:
Were you seriously planning to invest tens of billions into local production for just 10-100 guys in your far-away region? That seems irrational from a business perspective. You'd need hundreds of BPOs and huge stockpiles of lots and lots of different materials to be self-sustaining.
Tbh maybe I just don't understand the vision of self-sustaining 0.0 industry but seems like the ROI would be so bad that it would still be better to do logistics no matter how difficult it is, at least for some stuff. And then you'd just bring everything you need anyway.
This is what we 'others' complain about - the changes where opening up for more diverse gameplay again- with the current way only one way to play is feasible. ROI is not always measured in isk you know - there are actually players who do things just because they can be done - not necessarily because they are best isk per "insert favourite time length here". If i would just speak for myself - and i know i am not the only one anyways - then i rather manufacture my ass of for no isk at all but for a real purpose that might support some actual group effort. Same goes for anything you might imagine - its not only shooting at things - even if many people still seem to believe that. ROI can also be measured in 'i can deliver everything the locals need' - it just depends on what your investment was meant for. With current logistics the gameplay of 'being self-sufficient' has been basically deleted. I also don't understand how CCP expects at the same time having less stability/stagnation/blue donut in 0.0 and wanting more 0.0 production :) Those are opposite goals. If the environment is unstable you have to be completely irrational to invest capital in local manufacturing knowing that your POS/outpost might get captured anyday/hour now :)
risk = reward - thats the answer :)
Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote: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? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null.
Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in.
So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area. Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 22:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I still wonder if Greyscale got forced to make this JF change by someone higher up in CCP. It really doesnt fit with the rest of his vision at all and does substantially reduce the impact of the changes taken as a whole. In some of his replies he sounds pretty remorseful at having to compromise on this.
Aint that hard to figure out how this works - > list to http://themittani.com/news/401k-june-alliance-update -> check the military head and the comments about GMs -> where is that person now and which allinace/coalition -> note change in reaction between original and this -> result Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Dwissi wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote: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? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null. Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in. So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area. The whole Grr Goons is quite pointless in your response, as I was not calling for a nerf of highsec production. I'm merely pointing out that the production economy will always pick the path that is safer and therefore, more competitive and profitable over the less safer and risk mitigating option. It's an axiom. Increasing the risks of logistics and production in null without adjusting for the loss of competitiveness and profitability is never going to facilitate a highly localized and independent null production economy.
Lets start with this : Grr Goon - now you have what wasnt there before. It seems you missed it - 'you' was entire null as in one group regardless of size and name.
Requesting what you call 'loss of competitiveness and profitability' is the exact reason for my statement. Null has access to material that no one else has and can build and fly ship types no one else can unless in the same area. So you already have advantages - thats where your definition of balance is out of scope. Balancing the odds even more into that groups favour is what happens when the logistics changes dont happen, as you will not get any incentive to move your production out of 'our' area and start using 'your' space for what it was always meant for: To leave empire and live and rule there Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 10:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
xttz wrote:Baron Birco wrote:Seems to me the only folks complaining about the JF range were 10yr old chars with JF alts capable of supplying their entire alliance via link to Jita.
The nurf to JF actually made dedicated industrialists extremely valuable to Nullsec alliances to develop their respective local economies. It would have encouraged greater integration of PvE-centric players and game play with PvP. The changes brought lines of communication into existence and all the PvP content that goes along with that.
What we have now is just one set of code contradicting the other.
RIP Phoebe. Putting aside the other unresolved resource issues with living in null-sec, heavily nerfed logistics in a vacuum would cripple the entire T2 market for everyone. Do you want to pay 200mil for an Interceptor or 800mil for a HAC? The only people who win in that situation are those who have spent years assembling huge stockpiles of moon materials in high-sec and are able to control their distribution. Everyone else will pay through the nose or have to stick with T1. CCP need to have a long hard look at re-balancing resource distribution before messing around any further with logistical ranges, as it won't be the large nullsec alliances paying the bill for it.
Take some time and roll back a few years - this kind of argument has been used over and over again. It was the exact statement before JF where showing up, then it was used when more caps appeared - hell is was even one of the arguments why everyone wanted to evict BoB back in the days claiming they controlled all of it .
Playing the 'boogie-man' card of T2 is going to be badly expensive wont work on educated players any more. We alreadfy have a inflation of T2 ships compared to player age and necessity - not even mentioning how easy isk comes by these days. Its not special anymore - it has become standard to have easy access to it. And we shouldnt if we want the real Eve back that is challenging like a chess game with a decent oponent.
Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 11:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:GreyScale
In the shorter term can you increase the mexallon quantities in nullsec/lowsec ores to help make nullsec less reliant on JF logistics
Presently the value of nullsec ores is below that of highsec ores, due to the lack of Mexallon in nullsec ores 4x more Mexallon in Arkonor would help in the short term, until a more permanent balance can be achieved
Just build less capitals = less mex needed - no need to fix ore AGAIN Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 11:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
xttz wrote:Dwissi wrote: Take some time and roll back a few years - this kind of argument has been used over and over again. It was the exact statement before JF where showing up, then it was used when more caps appeared - hell is was even one of the arguments why everyone wanted to evict BoB back in the days claiming they controlled all of it .
Playing the 'boogie-man' card of T2 is going to be badly expensive wont work on educated players any more. We alreadfy have a inflation of T2 ships compared to player age and necessity - not even mentioning how easy isk comes by these days. Its not special anymore - it has become standard to have easy access to it. And we shouldnt if we want the real Eve back that is challenging like a chess game with a decent oponent.
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for supporting my point. T2 products have gotten relatively cheaper since the years of BoB, thanks in no small part to easier logistics from Rorquals and JFs. While many (including myself) would disagree with this development, is the best solution really a short sharp shock that drops the market back a full decade in one day? I used to manage moon-mining towers with a carrier in 2006, and I can honestly say that was easier and safer than the originally proposed version of this devblog. Back then many T2 ships and modules cost more than a 30 day timecard. Now you can buy many fitted T2 ships for 30 days of playtime - and you want to change back overnight? I wonder how many people share your devotion to this idea. It must be pretty awesome to be so set on a vision of how the game works you're willing for it to happen overnight at the detriment of the bulk of the player population, and benefit of the large established powers. Yep, I'm sure suddenly rewinding the clock 10 years for the sake of nostalgia will make many players thrilled. Why don't you just campaign for a server rollback to 2005? So long as your rose-tinted vision of EVE is realised, screw everyone else, right?
+1 for making me smile - have to give you that.
You would be perfectly right if the rewinding would include everything - but it doesnt. Its just a few aspects that where on that list and all the additions since then where still untouched. And since you like numbers and no one likes mining lets put some relative numbers to your 30-day argument:
Any half-decent player can easily mine - yes i use this on purpose as it doesnt require too much skill - its way to a plex in less than 14 days nowadays. That puts your 30-day value into this equation: When i could afford 1 T2 ship back then i now can easily afford 2 (and most players in Eve are better than just half-decent thus inflation). Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 13:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:afkalt wrote: You know what would help a LOT, actually, is if CCP actually alluded to the other things that they have planned for later.
It would probably help everyone as it is literally impossible to take part 1 of a 3 phase plan and hold it on overal merits if we do not know parts 2 and 3 even loosely. Specifics are not required - just something of the greater plan we can hold these changes up against.
At this point (to use a crapy TV analogy) we are basically arguing about whodunnit after watching part 1 of a 3 part TV murder mystery show!
the reason there's not any details is probably that steps 2 and 3 are currently in the "this is what we want the endpoint to be" and not "we have figured out how to get from a -> b". you don't want to talk about the goals when you're still figuring out if you can even get there - some goals are easy to say but insanely hard to implement and you might need to throw those out. for example: everyone always says that sov battles should require everyone to split their forces and contest multiple objectives, to combat lag. it's a good goal, but nobody has ever proposed a mechanic that implements it - all proposed mechanics the dominant strategy is still to combine your forces and crush each one of your enemy's dispersed forces in turn and nobody's been able to come up with a mechanic where that strategy isn't the best move Absolutely, which is why I say it doesnt need to be specific. Even as some mentoned before - what do they expect from this? What will it allow in the future? It's been done with changes before where people are like..."wtf this makes no sense" and the rationale is for something coming down the pipe. Sure they don't always get it right, but the intentions are always noble AND it would allow some earlier feedback. I suppose something similar to the sov shakeup preview thread asking for input - but giving context to the changes. I mean, for all we know there might be something huge coming down later which means that actually, the lower jump ranges are just fine because you have no real NEED to go very far for transient, temporary ops. Trouble is we don't know so people are arguing about things not being fit for purpose without any real clue as to what the purpose is going to be.
That is not CCPs fault but the players fault. There seems to be a misconception of what goals are. CCPs goals have to be to prevent too many from reaching THE end goal to keep the game interesting and dynamic somehow. Where as a player your goal is to reach that end goal and try to gather as much information upfront to prepare and succeed. Both concepts are completely opposite to each other which makes people start making assumptions, throwing bones and predicting futures out of it - not to mention all those fantastic crystal balls everyone seems to have. With every prediction CCP will adjust and change course to prevent too much of it actually happening and the circle starts a new round.
Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 13:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Dwissi wrote:That is not CCPs fault but the players fault. There seems to be a misconception of what goals are. CCPs goals have to be to prevent too many from reaching THE end goal to keep the game interesting and dynamic somehow. Where as a player your goal is to reach that end goal and try to gather as much information upfront to prepare and succeed. The endgoal is of course to get a Titan, join PL and endlessly thirdparty in order to doomsday people Now in lowsec
Wait - you are saying you guys wouldnt take me even if i bring a Titan? That really limits my options then [sarcasm off] Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 14:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Can't even believe someone gave you likes for this comment. At least 2 more idiots out there.
Dont be surprised about it - you show a very clear disrespect of other peoples opinion. Name calling just dumped you down into kindergarden again. Too bad there isnt a dislike button yet
Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
To throw something completely different into the entire discussion i would like to quote something from Eve - The book Vers.1.4:
'In an average binary system the jump gate has a range of around 5 light-years, provided the jump gate is constructed on the third resonance node.'
The 5 LY distance isnt something CCP just popped out of nothing - its a basic part of the lore and history Eve is build on. Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - Battle rorqual -- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway -- Reduced/removed drone bonus
just out of curiosity let us suppose the battle rorqual fleet was deployed how long do you think we'd have to play around with it before it got nerfed :sun: 6 weeks?
Less - patches can be deployed outside regular scheduled releases Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 09:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
alizter01 wrote:dam my rorq has no resale value :(
I can trade it for a brand new bestower :) Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 11:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
Polo Marco wrote:Alp Khan wrote:
The seemingly positive responses in this thread strictly acknowledge and celebrate a) The end of capital and supercapital combat projection b) The fact that Greyscale backtracked and did not completely annihilate null logistics, which is essential for life in null and for EVE economy and markets in any region of the game
The fallacy you took up does not change the obvious outcome that this poorly thought, theme park oriented and sandbox killing Greyscale plan will eventually result in the loss of more subscriptions and will be remembered as a nail on the coffin of EVE Online.
Please stop using similar weak fallacies in the future. Such attempts of obvious manipulation in support of some personal agenda you might have is simply an insult to the intelligence of anybody who is following this thread.
The only people in these forums who listen to the "end of Eve gloom and doom" rant are the trolls. They delight in "askinforallyourstuffs" and "realquittersbiomass" responses. Is this travel nerf a bad idea? Absolutely. But will Eve die tomorrow because of it? Of course not. Subscriptions and logins have been tailing off for the last year. Some failed peripheral projects have left CCP with an overabundance of talented and hardworking, coders , modelers, and designers. The result is a massive burst of features, improvements, and content the likes of which I have never seen in ANYWHERE else in my eleven and some odd years (six right here) of adventures in the MMO world. Let me tell you this: WHEN CCP GETS IT RIGHT, THEY GET IT RIGHT BETTER THAN ANY OTHER PUBLISHER. CCP Seagull has got her shop running at capacity, and I for one am impressed and grateful. But I also think that maybe they should slow down some. Harebrained schemes like this would never proceed to the production phase with proper critical review in house. When the developers don't find the devil's advocate until an idea reaches the player base the they need to step back and take a look at their vetting process. The mechanics proposed here break so many other aspects of gameplay that there is too big a risk in simply "deploying it and seeing what happens" I'm still blogging this in hopes of avoiding a train wreck, but like most Eve players I'll cheerfully loot every car that I can when it happens. Neither my subscription or my job is on the line here. These jump drive changes come packaged in a crate with "ACME" printed its side. BEEP BEEP
I basically couldnt agree more to your statements about the CCP does it right etc things - but i heavily disagree with the slow down part.
Let me use a different picture how i see the entire thing:
I throw a vase onto the floor, it breaks into many pieces and i put my kid to put it back together. Everytime it just manages to fix it I throw it back and it breaks into new pieces - thats what would happen if things get slowed down. I for once would prefer the 'once for all' approach a lot more than the constant smashing of it over and over again.
Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
36
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 15:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
If everyone would just step back for a second and look at the situation from the outside you would probably rethink the 'wtf' attitude and calm down a bit:
Capitals where introduced to have a counter to the original POS warfare. There is no POS warfare anymore because everyone kept shouting and screaming how awful that was. CCP changed it and yet - you kept your capitals - unchanged even.
We - the players - twisted the original ideas of ships into some completely different roles and as a result we twisted the original ideas of many other things at the same time. Eve is intertwined and we created effects that where not appreciated by many. CCP gave us a lot of time and just watched - but they obviously where not blind.
We as players have not been able to turn this wheel back - pretty human reaction as limiting ones abilities usually only happens when outside forces are at work. CCP is this outside force. Eve requires a change and change always means someone is going to suffer at least to some extend. Many others have suffered in other areas when changes where introduced for their line of gaming.
Pay these fellow gamers a bit of respect and dont act out like the upcoming changes are more important and more hurting than others in the past. Try to stay calm and adopt first instead of pumping out the 100th idea how CCP should implement things. We love to claim to be the 'smarter' community and the smarter players compared to other games - but currently we behave as bad as players of 'the game who's name shall not be stated'.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 06:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Dwissi wrote:We - the players - twisted the original ideas of ships into some completely different roles and as a result we twisted the original ideas of many other things at the same time. Eve is intertwined and we created effects that where not appreciated by many. CCP gave us a lot of time and just watched - but they obviously where not blind. You do realize that using ships and mechanics in ways that the developers don't envision is one of the things the developers intend for the game, right?
I do - and i also know that each twist has a limit of being useful and smart in a complex system. When you reach the point that those twists break more things than they improve its fair game to say: you twisted too much. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 07:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Quote:=CCP Greyscale
The fatigue isn't because of traveling through the 'hole, rather it's caused by the mental effort of causing it to form at the correct co-ordinates. Natural wormholes, stargates etc don't have this problem, and the further the distance the hole needs to connect to, the harder it is to calculate.
(Jump bridges/portals merely act as a surrogate jump drive, each ship still creates its own wormhole.) Interesting, I would have thought the cyno created the hole and the ships followed it. The same as using a jump bridge or wormhole or any other form of jump portal. The pilot can not form his own destination, he can ONLY jump to the coordinates at the end of the hole/portal. Which is created by a 3rd party, not the "mental effort" of the pilot. If in fact a pilot is responsible for creating the hole by mental effort, does that not mean there is no need for cynos, jump beacons, jump bridges etc - The pilot would use "mental effort" to select the destination. The HOLE logic behind and reason for cynosural fields, worm holes, jump bridges and even gates, just got changed. You seem to have forgotten, a gate between systems is a hole created in space to allow travel between selected places (like a jump bridge), why would that not create fatigue? Quote:=CCP Greyscale Part of the goal with logistics is to reduce the amount you need to live in null, which we think changes the playing field fairly substantially.
As to jumping through gates, yeah, thought about it, implementing a solution.
So the long term plan for nulsec is homogenization, so each region has access to everything they need to live in nulsec? Yeah that's going to open up lots of reason for conflict. Ahh good, at least we didn't forget anything - Capitals will now be allowed to use gates and cynos, beacons etc but to ensure they can't do both at the same time to minimize risk - A solution is being implemented - Glad I didn't miss that bit. Well done. I am all for change - As long as the proposed changes make sense - You explanation as to how fatigue works, does not make sense.
Another quote from the Eve book(lore helps a lot for fundamentals):
When the ship goes through the mass boson sphere, a mono-atomic layer of mass boson gets deposited on the ships surface. This layer counters the stretching of the ship against the metric gradient, enough to keep the structural integrity of the ship for the duration of the trip through the hole. This doesn't mean that the gradient is completely wiped out, and even seasoned space veterans still know the feeling known as 'going down the drain' when entering a wormhole.
Thats your answer - its physical stress in several forms in the end - not only stress on the material involved. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 07:07:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Dwissi wrote:We - the players - twisted the original ideas of ships into some completely different roles and as a result we twisted the original ideas of many other things at the same time. Eve is intertwined and we created effects that where not appreciated by many. CCP gave us a lot of time and just watched - but they obviously where not blind. You do realize that using ships and mechanics in ways that the developers don't envision is one of the things the developers intend for the game, right? I do - and i also know that each twist has a limit of being useful and smart in a complex system. When you reach the point that those twists break more things than they improve its fair game to say: you twisted too much. The changes CCP are making to capitals aren't twisting it too much. You'll see that if you wait a while to let people actually deal with them, instead of just knee-jerk whine about them.
You might want to go back to my original post - i dont complain at all about CCP changing. The contrary. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 11:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Oh well - i see more hate incoming but i post it anyways:
Locking down a station is an option - its not mandatory. Logistics between high sec and null is an option - its not mandatory. Everything stated so far about what keeps industry etc from developing in null is BS - sorry for the word. There are options already but they simply dont get used.
If there would be any interest to develop the local industry there would be many ways to make that happen - just look at Providence. But running NBSI and not maintaining ones space is simply easier and cheaper than actually caring around it . All other ways than the current ones require active maintenance and management. As long as any activity is purely measured in isk/hour changes have to be forced or they will simply not happen at all. This attitude has made complex space into a pvp desert where only killing ships matters nowadays - the space itself has no value anymore beside being rented. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Catching up on older stuff... Drak Fel wrote:So basically what you're saying is, don't do anything that can give you an advantage or we will nerf it to the ground. Not much of a sandbox. No, it's somewhat more subtle than that. One of the pillars of a good sandbox is that you're presented with a lot of choices. Another is that those choices are real choices, each with pros and cons, rather than false choices with only one good option. We're committed to trying to make EVE good, which means that any time an important choice collapses down into a single best option, we have a design need to either make the other options comparatively more viable, or to strip the choice out entirely. For nullsec in particular, there's a clear need for a diversity of strategic choices and organizational cultures and best practices, so that each new war is interesting and different rather than boring and the same. Currently, there's one dominant strategy, which is to form a huge coalition, rent space out, and defend it with as big a capital fleet as you can muster. This is uninteresting and ungood. We feel that limiting the degree to which you can rapidly deploy military power over long ranges is a necessary prerequisite for creating more diversity in nullsec. To this end, we're committed to achieving the goals laid out for these changes, primarily the need for gate travel to be the fastest way to move long distances. We generally want to be as hands-off and unrestrictive as possible with changes, as this creates more options and, through the interplay of many, many different individual decisions, allows for the emergence of interesting and novel tactics. When we're working with player motivation (ie giving more options for things players want to do), we do end up being very hands-off and very "do what you like". However in cases like this one, where a change we feel is needed to make the game better is working against player motivation, experience strongly suggests that the approach most likely to achieve our goals is to mandate the change needed in the most direct way possible, as attempts to be delicate or minimalist in the core change simply lead to circumvention. However, this still needs to be balanced against our other goal of allowing for as much emergence as possible, which generally pushes us away from doing completely bullet-proof things across the board. With these changes, we could prevent all possible workarounds up front, but we'd like to avoid doing so. The reason for this is that the oft-stated maxim that "if players can, they will", is not in our experience always true over the long term. We expect everything that people have suggested as workarounds to be tried at least once by most organized groups. However, a more complete model of what players will do would seem to be that there's always a tradeoff between "what can we do?" and "what is it worth doing?". Perhaps the canonical example here is the old "one per alliance per system per day" starbase limit - this is obviously gameable with dedicated anchoring corps, and this was used several time, but my experience with this change was that, after trying it a few times, most alliances didn't bother in most cases because it wasn't worth the hassle. So we're planning leaving the door open to a lot of the possible workarounds in the first release, because we're trying to balance achieving our "nerf travel" feature goal against our "support emergence" overarching goal, and we'd rather not block things off unless they have a decisive impact on the game. If certain things do come into *widespread* use, we will nerf them - not because they give advantage, but because they take us back towards the sorts of tactical and strategic monocultures that we want to avoid. If people use the Battle Rorqual every now and then, that's excellent, the same way that the Battle Helios is excellent. If either of those strategies become *dominant*, though, we will adjust them, because dominant strategies lead to stagnation and boredom, both of which are anathema to a healthy sandbox game. Wouldn't it be more effective to start off with the sov system, which is the reason we're seeing the stagnation we're seeing? It is, after all, the reason why the SOP of wars is "he who can stuff the most people/big things into one system on the final timer, wins". If it hadn't been this way, i.e. if we had gone back to something akin to the old POS system, or an occupancy-based system (I don't really care which, as long as it encourages/requires lots of smaller fleets engaging more constantly than today's once a day/once a week), then I'm pretty certain we would not be seeing the current 2 coalition nullsec we're seeing now. Don't get me wrong, I'm positive to the cap distance changes, but I just would've thought the sov system would've given more bang for your dev hour.
Greyscale has his name for a reason - he likes to hide important things in his walls :D - no offense intended grey ;)
This sentence says it all - its just a step: Quote'We feel that limiting the degree to which you can rapidly deploy military power over long ranges is a necessary prerequisite for creating more diversity in nullsec.' Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 11:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
While we are at it - it would actually be great if CCP would eliminate jump bridges as a whole. If i am not mistaken there will be player created jump gates one day - so jump bridges should be obsolete latest at that stage of changes. It would perfectly fit to the currently announced changes. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Dwissi wrote:While we are at it - it would actually be great if CCP would eliminate jump bridges as a whole. If i am not mistaken there will be player created jump gates one day - so jump bridges should be obsolete latest at that stage of changes. It would perfectly fit to the currently announced changes. While we are at it, lets not forget that the purpose of the new gates will be to explore new regions of space, not replace existing items. https://www.google.com/search?q=player+built+stargates also https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3900584#post3900584"Currently undergoing strategic expansion through multi-year roadmap introduced at EVE Fanfest 2013, where players will ultimately construct new stargates to expand the known EVE Universe for all products" "all products" being "EvE online, Dust514, and Valkyrie" That should help o/ Celly Smunt
You forget the important part of Seagull stating : 'Everything shall be destructible' - that would include existing gates ;)
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Doing some basic math on all those 'i am ragequitting/unsubbing' and the number of players listed in the different coalition alliances paints a funny picture - if any of it is going to be true we will not have any 5-digit members coalitions anymore :D
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:27:00 -
[26] - Quote
Viaharo Musa wrote:As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.
Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships. At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!!
That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
Viaharo Musa wrote:Dwissi wrote:Viaharo Musa wrote:As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.
Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships. At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!! That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement. If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further.
check this - the question asked by Vincent Athena and the answer from Greyscale is just one of the latest for that Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Viaharo Musa wrote:Dwissi wrote:Viaharo Musa wrote:As a capital pilot. I do have to say, i am flat out not happy that there are regions of null sec that you just FLAT cannot get to from low sec. Travel for the solo capital pilot is about to become a non reality with out much much greater increases in risk.
Are High sec gates going to be allowed for use by capitals in a travel sense only??? Aka if a carrier enters high sec.... it cannot use capital high slots, Cannot launch fighters, and or more than 5 drones flat out (probably better to cause bandwidth to drop to 125 or 100 also), to keep it in balance with other HS ships. At this point as a long term eve player, knowing high sec, low sec, and null.....I fail to see any further reason why capitals are not allowed in high sec that would not be fixed by the above changes. Carriers and the like would become no more powerful than an orca!! That has been answered several times earlier in the thread with a very clear : NO Really? Last dev reply i saw and searched for said the topic was going to be revised not a no, but also not a yes. Just a nebulous ask later statement. If it is going to be a no from them, then what is the reasoning. Or if its a yes, what is the plan. I see no reason delaying the questions asked till a later date any further. I'm all for caps in HS, but ONLY if they get a suspect flag upon entering. I mean, they're not supposed to be there anymore, so if that were to change.... it would be suspicious..... so a suspect flag (that's a flag not a timer) seems a fair comprimise. It also seems reasonable that if you're arbitrarily dropping their badwidth down to BS levels it only follows that it would be fair and just to drop the EHP down to BS levels also. Summary: Advantage - Capitals can move through HS Drawback- The pilot is flagged with a supect flag Drone bandwith is reduced to 125 EHP gets capped at 150k Let's get this done!!
Seriously - not going to happen . Why? Because then all industrialists will start a new threadonaut to get the ability back to produce capitals in high sec again. Intertwined system - remember?
P.S. On second note: Chribba will hate you for becoming a suspect when he undocks the veld-naught ;) Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
42
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Viaharo Musa wrote:
That is explaining a current mechanic not being addressed in this update. if you actually search a bit more, you will see that the last answer about if its going to be changed or not in ccp's plan for capital movement, is they want to revisit that at a later discussion. Id link it but.... Search a bit more and you'll find it.
My questions i originally asked are directed at CCP devs. Not players :-)
Note: Above snipped for readability
by slightly rephrasing the same question over and over again you dont state anything new - thats why i actually 'linked' - you didnt even have to search yourself. Your statement was 'that you fail to see any reason...' - the answers given earlier where already stating its not going to happen in this update - so why ask again for something that has been made irrelevant for THIS topic.
Any change regarding capitals and high sec will just start another scream throughout eve as that is one complete topic for itself in the end as it is more complex than what you like to make it in your statement. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:33:00 -
[30] - Quote
Byson1 wrote:Tikitina wrote:Byson1 wrote: It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.
I believe this is what CCP is going for.
If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?
It will be the start of removing a reason to be in a large coalition. If you can't get way over there to help in a reasonable time, why be part of the organization. To be honest, I think you underestimate CCP's desire the remove the need for large coalitions. If this doesn't do the trick they will make it even harder to move combat forces. What I do hope they implement in the Sov changes is the "Treaties" idea from several years ago. That and these movement changes can go a long way to Null a lot friendlier to smaller organizations. I disagree. I may make coalitions, have more supplies spread out. Sure small alliances part of a big coalition may have to disband and join the larger alliance because they no longer have the manpower to provide logistics. It appears CCP thinks that null sec can be totally isolated economically from high sec. That's not true, unless you have a HUGE player base in your alliance.
Coalitions have a huge player base - and still they never felt the need to isolate themselves from the empire or create a local industry. You describe the obvious problem - instead of being assimilated into one alliance and thus being able to be independent in their own space we have a cluster of landlords and renters who clink to their own alliance name for whatever reason. These renters dont own space, dont own any important moons, but often deliver the largest active population in their respective areas. The changes will actively enable them to rethink their process - do they want to stay renter(formerly known as pets) or take up arms and get rid of the oppressors (pun intended).
We as a player base get more options than we have right now while some options get taken away - thats how it has always been with changes so far.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:46:00 -
[31] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dwissi wrote:
Coalitions have a huge player base - and still they never felt the need to isolate themselves from the empire or create a local industry.
That would be because it was impossible to do for over a decade. You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dwissi wrote: You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement
Just adding clarity. Far too many people have no idea industry was impossible to do in null until just a few months ago.
I am pretty sure a lot of the older players being part of very old alliances that held sov back years ago will disagree with that
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
44
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dwissi wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dwissi wrote: You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement
Just adding clarity. Far too many people have no idea industry was impossible to do in null until just a few months ago. I am pretty sure a lot of the older players being part of very old alliances that held sov back years ago will disagree with that As one of those people, no, we won't
You are not old enough in my book :) Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
46
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:44:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dwissi wrote: You keep snipping the context - my answer is a part of a specific context and not a general statement
Just adding clarity. Far too many people have no idea industry was impossible to do in null until just a few months ago. I am pretty sure a lot of the older players being part of very old alliances that held sov back years ago will disagree with that No, it pretty much was impossible to do. We had less industrious capacity in the entirety of the retion of deklein than quite a LOT of systems in hisec. And that's before you take into account the fact you have to get minerals and other resources TO that station in the first place, which may or may not be possible to do because the station might not have a refinery. Etc etc etc.
Allow me to be rude for once - you simply lack creativity. Any POS can be set up with a refinery array - thats how industry was done before you had access to a station. Thats what i meant with not old enough in my book - you argue on a convenience level without applying all the options that are available to us as players. There is not only stations as there is not only low level ore in high sec etc etc - you are just filtering out all the options you deem to be inconvenient. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 22:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lets make this shorter - you use very strong words like 'impossible ' where you mean 'inconvenient' or something similar. As i am not a native speaker myself i usually dont act that picky - but you keep snipping things out of context and use absolute words just to jump into a long list of exceptions in the next post.
Its simply wrong when you state that things cant be done - the mechanics are there and have always been there to create industry everywhere in Eve. Your own alliance produced in null before the first Great war - you are simply in denial if you claim otherwise.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 23:05:00 -
[36] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lets make this shorter - you use very strong words like 'impossible ' where you mean 'inconvenient' or something similar. As i am not a native speaker myself i usually dont act that picky - but you keep snipping things out of context and use absolute words just to jump into a long list of exceptions in the next post. Its simply wrong when you state that things cant be done - the mechanics are there and have always been there to create industry everywhere in Eve. Your own alliance produced in null before the first Great war - you are simply in denial if you claim otherwise. Try to supply an alliance such as goonswarm while using the POS refineries and manufacturing arrays etc, without committing suicide or spending more JF capacity on POS fuel etc than you would just shipping the finished product to begin with.
As said - inconvenient, tedious etc - yes. Impossible - no Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 23:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lets make this shorter - you use very strong words like 'impossible ' where you mean 'inconvenient' or something similar. As i am not a native speaker myself i usually dont act that picky - but you keep snipping things out of context and use absolute words just to jump into a long list of exceptions in the next post. Its simply wrong when you state that things cant be done - the mechanics are there and have always been there to create industry everywhere in Eve. Your own alliance produced in null before the first Great war - you are simply in denial if you claim otherwise. Try to supply an alliance such as goonswarm while using the POS refineries and manufacturing arrays etc, without committing suicide or spending more JF capacity on POS fuel etc than you would just shipping the finished product to begin with. As said - inconvenient, tedious etc - yes. Impossible - no. And your comment is why i argue with Baltec in the first place - this entire discussion was around a very specific context that he so conveniently snipped out to distract from the topic. Well, take away the JFing of POS fuel in, and see how easy that gets, then.
Last time i checked there was Ice in null - thus you can create the fuel there and dont HAVE to import. Thats closing the circle we where running around - you CAN import but dont HAVE to. Thus impossible doesnt apply to anything regarding general industry in null. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 11:13:00 -
[38] - Quote
I wonder - i finally see a goon admitting 'they already won eve ' - what keeps you here then? Not a grrr - but i am really curious. When a game of chess or whatever game you like is finished - do you actually keep moving pieces around on the same board just for lols? Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
49
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 15:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
Polo Marco wrote: Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone.
Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing.
My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'
I dont have any exact figures about the populations in null and everywhere else - but stating that THE players got lost in this doesnt really hit it. If we ignore the Provi/Hero fights for a moment - where is the conflict? There is none and if there is one it gets a massive battle like B-R right away. Those battles have nothing really appealing besides for those who are in the front line of it - looking at some footage a day after is usually the better choice because the gain of it is usually just a massive destruction of some force with no bigger consequences anywhere else.
These changes will not take that away from you - it just makes it less obvious to happen constantly. So stating that we players are losing playstyle choices is a really wrong assessment. Many players like me actually see the complete opposite - that we get playchoices BACK that where taken away. Eve was always so much more than just destroying things - that was and will always be one of the core parts but its not the most important one. It is situated beside other core parts - its equal to others. Fleets like spectre, RvB Ganked and others exist because of the lack of constant skirmishes and conflicts - and even if they are great fun it is really wrong that we need something like it in the first place. The upcoming changes gives many players the chance to be part of regular conflicts again on a smaller scale because of travel restrictions for capitals. It gives players who want constant fighting a chance back to become a loyal member of a corporation/alliance again and get regular fights - instead of leaving to a NPC corp and joining free roams to cater that need. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
51
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:20:00 -
[40] - Quote
Whatever the changes are going to change in the future - much more interesting is to see what already changes. A -250 delta change for Brothers of Tanga is quite a number. That reads in my book: the changes are good as something is happening Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
52
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:52:00 -
[41] - Quote
Panther X wrote:MeBiatch wrote:So with the addition of the tug boat. I.e. a freighter sized ship with a massive sma can we expect to see a techh II version that had the jump freighters abilities. .. I.e. 10 ly jump range an 90% jump fatigue bonus?
yes. please yes.
You guys are aware of the notes he made to the Tug, right?
The slide explicitly stated 'Suitable for moving multiple fitted ships through highsec' - so dont set your hopes too high that it will be so useful in null. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
54
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 13:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Dwissi wrote:Panther X wrote:MeBiatch wrote:So with the addition of the tug boat. I.e. a freighter sized ship with a massive sma can we expect to see a techh II version that had the jump freighters abilities. .. I.e. 10 ly jump range an 90% jump fatigue bonus?
yes. please yes. You guys are aware of the notes he made to the Tug, right? The slide explicitly stated 'Suitable for moving multiple fitted ships through highsec' - so dont set your hopes too high that it will be so useful in null. He says also its meant to help because you cant move capitals in high - so its an equivalent to the carrier in null. now, the idea of that ship I like very much,,, not the jump drive part of it so much, but the idea of a ship transport mechanic that's different from what we have to rely on now when in high sec. o/ Celly Smunt
There is no jump drive on it - thats just what other users wish. Its like the hauler and a jump freighters difference - the tug is meant to make moving loads of ships more comfy in high sec without being able to jump unless you use a jump bridge which will add fatigue to the pilot as to any other hauler. So its basically the solution for the whining that its sooo hard to move many ships at a time and prevents further suggestions to allow capitals into high sec again. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 22:20:00 -
[43] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Celly S wrote:Andy Landen wrote: It appears that your point is that the changes are intended to make it much more dangerous to take capital ships out of the station garage for either assault or evac. Now we have to evac our capitals before the change so that they won't be stranded during emergency evac operations later on. Null sec becomes safer for sub-capital ships and even safer for the greatly buffed Black Ops. I guess the point is to create a safer null sec for low skill pilots.
So the point is then to punish those who dedicated massive training time to capital ships and to discourage the use of capital ships for anything. The point is to turn null sec into easy mode for subcaps. I am not interested in easy mode null sec for subcaps! I have lost interest already and I blame CCP for threatening to nullify the value of my cap ship skills training time.
That's not my point at all... you basically asked for them to be turned into a ceptor, which would nullify almost every single thing CCP wants to achieve with these changes.... With that, comes the risk of gate travel. (something else that CCP and players want... small conflicts instead of server melting battles every -so -often).. Whether it was your point or not, CCP is poised to crush years of training with a bad solution to a legitimate problem. I don't appreciate that at all and I will not stand for it. I have proposed that CCP lengthen the jump time according to the jump distance much (like an intersystem warp lasting hours) in order to prevent everyone in Eve (from different systems) from landing simultaneously and instantaneously on a single grid. Or prevent ship locking and drone deployment for hours after a jump in order to prevent everyone in Eve engaging simultaneously on a single grid. People won't jump because they know that they will miss the fight unless they are close enough and take the gates. Carriers will never have the align time, warp time, lock time, etc of a ceptor, so enough with the correlation. CCP's stated goal is to prevent half of Eve from landing on the same grid instantly and at the same time so that local battles remain local battles and the worst case scenario for a fleet commander is not that they will have to fight half of Eve. With a delay of many hours for travel, the battle can come and go with the field completely cleared and single targets can be taken out easily as they land on grid from distant systems.
There are no such things as 'bad solutions' unless they have been actually introduced. Dont mix up between facts and assumptions - because as of right now its the latter you are stating. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
59
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I get that it's becoming less useful due to some other changes, but giving it a 10LY jump range just doesn't seem all the.... mineristic. Rorqual is not only a mining support ship, but also a POS service vessel and a medium-sized hauler. My vote is to give it 10LY range, but no fatigue bonuses. Drones may stay or go - I dont care. E: I also dont think T1 industrials need fatigue bonuses. Leave it for T2 ships only.
But thats what the Rorq was originally intended to be - a mining support vessel. I would rather see hidden belts coming back then further nerfs to it. The Rrorq was and is basically the only high level ship left for a miner to skill up to. Degrading /changing it into yet another hauler/combat vessel would just be wrong.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
59
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: My point is that a big reason that 0.0 exists in the way it does today is because you've made the logistics side TOO easy. In fact the commentary on this done by the CSM rep CoreBloodBrothers is a very good point to this (I listened to the interview he gave with Bob's Corner). It shouldn't take one JF pilot a few minutes to jump goods to a whole region like that... Think about all the PVP that is potentially wasted becuase things like Freighter OPS using gates are a thing of the past now. Can you image the amount of loss that would happen when you loose 10-20 freighters full of goods?! In fact I seem to remember this actually happening a couple times before all this bridge foolishness was released. Honestly, you should just remove pos bridges completely while you are at it.
Oh my god - i cant believe this. Finally a voice that points out what i posted a few days back. Get completely rid of those jump bridges!!!
+1 and my full support to a player who has actually been in the real industry mess of null :)
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
60
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:19:00 -
[46] - Quote
Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.
By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts gets obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grrr everyone |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:31:53 -
[47] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Fuel for all ships is a terrible idea, but CCP probably considered your idea as another way to try to limit force projection is to vastly lower the size of the fuel bay and fleet hangers on carriers and Supercapitals. Could players plan around it? Yes. Do I want to take a jump freighter into the next fleet fight or hot drop along with my Supercapital? Hell no! So, I set up fuel stations all over the place to work around that. In the end, it's one of those changes that benefits the large and well-organized coalitions: who have the fuel stations and docking rights across half of Eve already. Not only does it benefit the large and well-organized coalitions (let's be fair, this can be said of literally every change ever conceived of), it also punishes newbies and risks alienating them before they've even gotten out of their first constellation. "Oh, you're a newbie and your ship's out of fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." or "Oh, you're a newbie and you can't afford more fuel? Well, you should've thought of that before you undocked." It's a neat idea in theory, but in practice it's absolutely terrible.
Well - coming to think about it: Its actually a great idea to improve industry again. Think of all the possible fuel stops one can set up :D
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:46:58 -
[48] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, if you actually want to incentivize having the rorqual in the belt, if you want rorqual owners to be able to make use of the compression on site, while giving boosts, and to be more vulnerable than 'afk 23/7' in the pos, the drone bonus (among some other necessary changes) is essential for giving the rorqual the ability to provide defensive support for mining ships, as well as to have some form of punch to fight back against small roaming gangs/solo pvpers. Honestly, I have no idea how CCP will try to pull Rorquals into the belts. Now, when one can bypass cynojammers with dreads and motherships, that Rorqual would be doomed if noticed by any semi-competent PVPer. Best practice would be something like this: - find a system where Rorqual sits usually; - sneak and logoff your capitals there; - on the other day, get a tackle on Rorqual; - login and kill. And drone bonuses will not help with that. Seriously, I think nerfing cynojammers is a huge mistake, considering capital proliferation. Cyno jammers are meant as a strategic asset not your personal safety blanket. They still have the effect of forcing the enemy through gates. In the case of a fight over a structure timer this is significant. They should move the mining link role to some sort of ORE command ship and give bonuses for how people actually use the ship.
No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
CCP introduces ship with role - ships keeps role and base bonuses and only fine adjustments are made if the values are completely off - but dont change the base of a ship to start with. That gives stability towards the sandbox gaming as skilling will never be useless - the ship will always have at least its base role. Thats how it should work at all times.
I took a break and find myself with a ton of Ospreys that used to be cool mining ships - they completely changed role in one update. Useless now because skills and ships dont comply to each other anymore. And there are tons of examples like that. Which is why i posted earlier that taking a step back and looking how many other professions and gamestyles have been demolished over the years because of making that kind of changes is a bad idea.
We as players get tools - we get freedom how we use them. If we are able to use them better or smarter than the intended use - fine. But changing them into the exact thing we use it for is simply wrong.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:53:31 -
[49] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dwissi wrote: No No and another No to that. That is what created the entire mess in the first place - CCP giving in to changing ships bonuses and adjusting them to whatever the players used them for instead of keeping their intended roles. That is completely against the sandbox idea and continuously leads to the whining of one or another group about being nerfed to hell.
more and more i find that if a post contains the word "sandbox" and does not have a ccp tag it nearly exclusively contains incredibly bad ideas about gameplay justified solely through a handwave at the word sandbox it's remarkable, really
Well - come up with proper argument against an idea and why its better. My kids tend to say something is bad - and they dont get away with just that. I assume you are an adult - so you can defnitly do better than that.
P.S: Snipping half of the context is a bad attitude by the way
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 17:22:34 -
[50] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:That's still pretty one-sided thinking, which agreed does define goons combat history in a nutshell (ie piling all into just one system). Yes, you can definitely 'reset all progress' at one objective. Let's see how well it goes when you have more than one objective on the line at once. It will be much harder to reset that. Don't worry, you'll probably be seeing the occasional sov loss on our part after the jump change, but there's not going to be a dramatic change there from today's situation. You'll see a much bigger change from today's situation if CCP were to make a change like f.ex modifying today's sov system so you can only reset one stage of attacker progress (as opposed to all of it) per victory, or if the sov system was changed into something completely different (like an occupancy-based sov system). That's when you'll see the political changes, as opposed to just some territory changes. SFM Hobb3s wrote:That is the goal here....break apart your one big blob and either force you to stop depending on your caps and supers and start relying on subcaps, or force you to devide your forces, which reduces your combat effectiveness considerably given your combat history. Funny, the last I heard from the last few wars has been that we never depended on our caps and supers, and only used subcaps "because [we're] skurrd".
I wouldnt bet on that - since Eve Vegas we know how your region commander works. By knowing its strength we also know the weakness by now :D
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 18:38:15 -
[51] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:Querns wrote:So I'd like to bring up a slightly different point -- something that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been mentioned before: missing lowsec gate connections. This primarily concerns combat capitals; those limited to five lightyears' range. The goal of the long distance travel changes is to make taking gates be, in general, faster than jumping for capital ships. However, this is predicated on the availability of corridors for capital ships to travel in the first place. While most of lowsec is reasonably interconnected, there exist three exceptions to this rule. Namely, sections of lowsec in southern Aridia/Khanid, Tash-Murkon, and Derelik are completely isolated from the rest of lowsec and REQUIRE at least one jump to traverse. The inaccessibility of these regions via lowsec-gate-only corridor range from relatively easy to overcome (Aridia's inaccessibility is the fault of a single highsec island system, Sazilid) to punishing (all traffic to lowsec Tash-Murkon must jump in and out a single system, Mai.) These regions represent a very important strategic staging location for assaulting the regions of Delve, Querious, and Providence with the capital ships needed to wage modern warfare. I'm not trying to suggest that ALL systems in lowsec be interconnected with each other, but having large pockets of strategically crucial lowsec be inaccessible outside of jumping does not feel right to me. With this in mind, my question becomes does CCP consider large sections of inaccessible lowsec an issue? If so, I'd be happy to suggest some fixes to the problem. Except the relative isolation of some low sec system is a good thing. Low sec doesn't exist merely as a staging point for null blocs, or do you not realize other people have vastly different playstyles, such as living in low sec pockets? The game isn't balanced around capitals as the universal end-game; that much should be obvious from the jump changes. I wrote a blog post about this when the changes were announced because of how good of a change this is for low sec, making some pockets even more isolated: http://evelostfound.blogspot.com/2014/10/phoebe-madness.html There are other problems in your post as well. Just because a general goal of the jump changes is to encourage capitals to take gates (as well as not travel so far, in general) does not mean that, therefore, low sec pockets should to be connected to others by gates. Your post contradicts itself when it says that such low sec pockets are "completely isolated" and "inaccessible"--but you can still jump there. What you mean to say is that some systems are now less convenient for you to use to as staging points for logistics into null, to which the appropriate response is, "Good." You're vastly over-evaluating the scope of my suggestions as well as the intended goal. I'm not trying to force interconnectivity between ALL lowsec systems -- just these three particular areas. These particular examples represent a huge swathe of systems; one could hardly consider them "pockets" nor representative of the sort of utopian small gang microclimates you're lionizing. Besides -- adding more potential for gate travel adds lots of content. Imagine a group of vulnerable dreadnoughts traveling through your stomping grounds, with you and yours at the ready to gank a straggler. People often complain about how dead lowsec is; how could additional traffic NOT be desired? Additionally, use of the terms "inaccessible" was always predicated by "gate travel" throughout the entire post. Under no circumstances did I imply that they were also inaccessible by jumping. If they had been, I would have mentioned that as well -- however, during my research, I failed to find a single area that was unaccessible by jump OR gate, so I left that point out due to its gross inaccuracy.
I had as well answered to that part - but i didnt quote you so you might have missed more arguments against your suggestion - so i repeat them here: Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.
By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts become obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 19:10:20 -
[52] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dwissi wrote:I had as well answered to that part - but i didnt quote you so you might have missed more arguments against your suggestion - so i repeat them here: Making the eve universe a 'uniform' place is wrong to start with. Regional differences in appearance and nature, differences in reachability and traffic - all that has to stay to keep Eve a diverse and interesting universe.
By uni forming everything in Eve conflicts become obsolete - by keeping diversity and areas that are worth more than others constant conflict is kind of pre-programmed. Not every system HAS to be reachable by jumps - its actually very healthy if they are not to keep the diversity most players want. The argument about diversity like this is very romantic, but it falls flat due to the fact that it doesn't actually exist, today. Right now, the current range of capital ships is such that no part of lowsec actually meets these requirements. If I and my closest one thousand friends wanted to take a weekend trip to an isolated lowsec pocket, move in, and put cars up on cinder blocks, it'd be trivial for us to do so. (This is not a threat; the vagaries of the current political climate make this particularly infeasible anyways as we have a multi-front war that we are currently fighting. Just take it as an example of how things are today. This also neatly discounts the "conflict becomes obsolete" argument.) The diversity you speak of is being manufactured, from whole cloth, by the jump range reduction and the introduction of fatigue. As such, this future diversity is not yet set in stone. If this proto-diversity was sacrosanct, then we wouldn't have seen the easing of the jump freighter range from five lightyears to ten lightyears. I was particularly saddened by this revelation, having spent a significant amount of time optimizing for it and finding ways to use it to my advantage. (But I digress.) I find it difficult to take seriously an argument that denounces the change on the grounds of a vignette that, by the very physical reality of how the game works, cannot possibly have taken place, as well as a vignette that has already been encroached upon once by revisions to the proposed changes in question.
First of all - thanks for agreeing with my main point. Its diverse enough as it is - and the jump part is about to be changed to ensure that even more.
To use a different analogy for your argument: The universe is as it is - if you dont like the climate of where you live you wont seriously consider moving the sun around or stop the earth rotation. But your proposed change is exactly that. We are not able to create gates (yet) but will one day. Until then live with pockets and secluded areas. High sec and low sec are not areas that are created to be a pinball for null sec's interest but their completely own areas. They cater many people with their complete own playstyle and requirements.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 19:37:58 -
[53] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dwissi wrote:
First of all - thanks for agreeing with my main point. Its diverse enough as it is - and the jump part is about to be changed to ensure that even more.
To use a different analogy for your argument: The universe is as it is - if you dont like the climate of where you live you wont seriously consider moving the sun around or stop the earth rotation. But your proposed change is exactly that. We are not able to create gates (yet) but will one day. Until then live with pockets and secluded areas. High sec and low sec are not areas that are created to be a pinball for null sec's interest but their completely own areas. They cater many people with their complete own playstyle and requirements.
No -- my point is exactly the opposite. There IS no diversity in lowsec along the veins that you describe, today, due to the current ability for capital ships to travel. Even if you don't use capital ships directly to participate in fights or to consume PVE content, capital ships are widely used to move people, sub-capital ships, and materiel to and from areas at a rate much more effective than taking gates. They affect everything that players do, and make current gate topography completely unimportant. Your analogy is also flawed because the jump range reduction and addition of jump fatigue are doing exactly as you describe -- we are moving the sun, stopping the rotation of the earth, etc. by restricting the ability to move. I can't agree that doing this is right, while simultaneously denouncing the addition of the odd gate or two to make the new style of capital movement possible.
The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 19:58:01 -
[54] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:The universe is your box - the rest are the tools that reside inside the box. One tool is going to be changed - not the box. Your suggestion is to change the box affecting many more tools than just your puny jumpdrives. Just like ships or modules sometimes requiring balance, so too might the universe, if the changes being made to other parts of the game might mean that some areas end up lacking in the strategy department. Just like when they decided to get rid of ice belts and replace them with respawning belts.
I better not comment on the belts - just ends in a rant as its one of the worst things that have been done imho - but thats irrelevant for this issue. CCP was asked many years ago by the players to provide them with a ship type that would ease up on parts of the null warfare as it used to be. The ships had nothing to do with the travelling the universe or any other aspect by that definition - it was a warfare problem being solved. These ships are just a very small part of the entire contents of the box. Movig and adjusting their values and abilities may ruffle up the contents of the box - but there is not a single valid argument to change the box for that.
Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:16:28 -
[55] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dwissi wrote: Or to use a picture again: You started a game of chess with a given set of pieces and a given board. One doesnt change the board constantly just because one single piece has some flaws - you change the rules or the piece itself.
Sorry, but your metaphors are pretty weak. The universe's geographical layout isn't sacrosanct. It just isn't. They've added regions and gates since version 1.0. No amount of metaphor changes that.
Well - those changes have obviously been the source of a lot of evil. But lets play along with your theory and request. Then please CCP - remove Jita from the universe if you change any access between null and empire.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:21:53 -
[56] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dwissi wrote:Well - those changes have obviously been the source of a lot of evil. But lets play along with your theory and request. Then please CCP - remove Jita from the universe if you change any access between null and empire. Disregarding the utter absurdity of your logical leap from "adding a stargate" to "removing solar systems", this would do precisely nothing. Jita is not special; another system would easily take its place.
Then its as relevant as your request - thats why i made it.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 20:56:38 -
[57] - Quote
Stacking people from your alliance against any kind of different idea wont help. We all understand by now that you follow the same ideas and trends inside your group. And there are other groups who simply look at things differently and will continuously oppose any suggestions you make. Because you dont try to ruin my game - but THE game ;)
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:15:05 -
[58] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Stacking people from your alliance against any kind of different idea wont help. We all understand by now that you follow the same ideas and trends inside your group. And there are other groups who simply look at things differently and will continuously oppose any suggestions you make. Because you dont try to ruin my game - but THE game ;) Huh? What the hell are you on? Do you think there's some sort of puppetmastery posting control centre dictating how all goons should post on all topics? Could it not just be that -- shock horror -- we come to the same conclusion all on our own?
I basically made a compliment by accepting that you guys all belong to the same group and are loyal to your mindsets - otherwise you would be in a different alliance/group hopefully. I am just pointing out a trend you all seem to share. Capitals are a null sec deal and any changes to a null sec ship class should not affect anything else except maybe a meta level. Its the first change of many to come but you flood this topic constantly with changes that basically point to keep as much of the current meta as possible by changing other aspects of the game.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:55:06 -
[59] - Quote
Querns wrote:Dwissi wrote:Capitals are a null sec deal and any changes to a null sec ship class should not affect anything else except maybe a meta level. Its the first change of many to come but you flood this topic constantly with changes that basically point to keep as much of the current meta as possible by changing other aspects of the game. Uh, this is expressly incorrect. Capital ships can be and are actively used in lowsec. e: grammar
I never doubted or ignored that fact - but they are a ship class that has its roots in null sec. I am sure you are old enough to recall when and why they where introduced. The main argument still stands - changing the jump capability of them has no relation at all to a change of traffic routes and gates between null sec and low sec. At least not for the current stage - if that becomes feasible at a later stage when more changes are being introduced is a different story.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 22:48:26 -
[60] - Quote
Querns wrote:Perhaps I should elucidate on the previous post I've made.
Your argument is "because I think that capital ships 'have their roots in nullsec', despite the fact that capital ships are used daily in lowsec, no accomodations could possibly be made to ease their use in a new environment where jumping is heavily penalized."
Just... wow.
I dont think - i know. Rephrasing my words fits very much to your post right before this one. Maybe a few moments spend in the Evelopedia brings you up to common ground and reduces the 'wow' effect for you.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:30:46 -
[61] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:I could edit that page to say Primary This Rifter is the best damn Archon pilot there is.
I wonder if Dwissi would believe it.
Good luck trying to edit it - but no need to convince me. I know you guys are all awsome pilots to begin with
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 11:31:37 -
[62] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:
b) Industrial siege cycle timer is dropped to 2 minutes AND grav belts are moved from anomalies back to signatures provided some degree of additional safety
With either of these two changes, I would do it, since that would take hauling out of the equation. Hulks sit around the rorqual, deposit ore into freight cans, rorq scoops all the ore every few minutes, compresses. Could sit without warping off for a few hours.
d) Somehow reducing the bonus of the Rorqual overall, so that it is above an orca, but below current at a pos, but higher than it is now while in the belt
e) Rorqual does not appear on d-scan while siege and/or rorqual recieves MASSIVE sensor strength boost making it very hard to probe out while in siege. Neither makes the rorqual uncatchable, just adds a little safety.
Those are awsome suggestions - would love to see them as well
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 13:46:21 -
[63] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Okay so you really seem pretty geared toward trying to keep the Rorqual in the role it was originally envisioned and as it's description is written. Okay. That's great.
But if you're going to do that than what is the point of the large general purpose cargo hold? If the sole idea of this ship is to sit in the belt and compress ore and provide boosts, than also gimp it into that role.
As far as i can see the changes made to all the mining ships (splitting cargo hold into cargo hold+ore hold) have not been reflected to the cargo hold of the Rorqual. Before that mentioned change crystals etc was better moved by the Rorq and picked up from there instead of filling up the hold of the mining ship itself. A real mining supply and refuel role basically.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 17:48:41 -
[64] - Quote
Its utterly hilarious how 'concerned' all the sudden many people are with accessibility of specific regions and areas. Why was no one concerned with it when the map started to be covered by just 3 or 4 entities? CCP's job is not to fix our failures but to fix problems with the game itself.
Get a gang to move shortly before or right after down time and log off your fleet in the system you want to take over if its at the very end of the map - thats how it was done years ago.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 18:13:50 -
[65] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Its utterly hilarious how 'concerned' all the sudden many people are with accessibility of specific regions and areas. Why was no one concerned with it when the map started to be covered by just 3 or 4 entities? CCP's job is not to fix our failures but to fix problems with the game itself.
Get a gang to move shortly before or right after down time and log off your fleet in the system you want to take over if its at the very end of the map - thats how it was done years ago. Let's not pretend that the way forward is to constantly look at what was done in the game 10 years ago. Thins have moved on slightly in various areas since then.
If a solution could be done with the tools years ago and they can be done with the current tools then its not a 'tool' problem but a lack of creativity.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 18:24:53 -
[66] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Its utterly hilarious how 'concerned' all the sudden many people are with accessibility of specific regions and areas. Why was no one concerned with it when the map started to be covered by just 3 or 4 entities? CCP's job is not to fix our failures but to fix problems with the game itself.
Get a gang to move shortly before or right after down time and log off your fleet in the system you want to take over if its at the very end of the map - thats how it was done years ago. Let's not pretend that the way forward is to constantly look at what was done in the game 10 years ago. Thins have moved on slightly in various areas since then. If a solution could be done with the tools years ago and they can be done with the current tools then its not a 'tool' problem but a lack of creativity. If CCP can make changes which make something more fun and less cockstabby, then it improves the game. Is this a bad thing? Because if CCP improving their game is a bad thing, then I'm sure we can get them to turn back changes like the industry update, go back to the very first PI UI etc, because who needs to improve on something which technically is doable given the existing tools?
So you vote for getting Hello Kitty in space?
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 18:47:25 -
[67] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: If CCP can make changes which make something more fun and less cockstabby, then it improves the game.
Is this a bad thing? Because if CCP improving their game is a bad thing, then I'm sure we can get them to turn back changes like the industry update, go back to the very first PI UI etc, because who needs to improve on something which technically is doable given the existing tools?
So you vote for getting Hello Kitty in space?[/quote] This is my face when people seem to unironically believe that "making improvements" is "getting hello kitty in space":
: |[/quote]
Dodging a clear question - i take that as a yes then. We are not talking about a UI change here but about changing core elements of the box again instead of using the tool that isnt 'hello kitty' and obvious but requires a little bit of thinking.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 19:09:16 -
[68] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:This is my face when people seem to unironically believe that "making improvements" is "getting hello kitty in space":
: | Dodging a clear question - i take that as a yes then. We are not talking about a UI change here but about changing core elements of the box again instead of using the tool that isnt 'hello kitty' and obvious but requires a little bit of thinking. So the changes CCP made to industry, PI, adding caps etc etc etc back in the day turned EVE into hello kitty? I.e. any change which doesn't literally hammer the nails further into your ballsac is turning EVE into hello kitty?
Did those 'improvements' solve any of the problems they where introduced for?
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 20:03:42 -
[69] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Guess I was right about it being denial. Deciding to abandon three whole regions (and its not even Phoebe yet) is already a considerable bite out of the donut.
Damn these are gonna be two long weeks....go by already!!!! LOL.
Dont let them fool you - Brothers of Tangras minus in delta (people leaving) is nearly the same number as Legions growth. There are some 300 missing actually - probably some alts that havnt made it yet. But they are just shifting people amongst those 2
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 20:04:40 -
[70] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:Lord TGR wrote:This is my face when people seem to unironically believe that "making improvements" is "getting hello kitty in space":
: | Dodging a clear question - i take that as a yes then. We are not talking about a UI change here but about changing core elements of the box again instead of using the tool that isnt 'hello kitty' and obvious but requires a little bit of thinking. So the changes CCP made to industry, PI, adding caps etc etc etc back in the day turned EVE into hello kitty? I.e. any change which doesn't literally hammer the nails further into your ballsac is turning EVE into hello kitty? Did those 'improvements' solve any of the problems they where introduced for? Yes?
Sure?
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 08:45:47 -
[71] - Quote
Right. Another multi-purpose-i-can-do-everything module because players want it. Goodness - its a CYNO Jammer - not a gate locker. It jams cyno fields - thats it.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 09:04:56 -
[72] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Bring a subcap support fleet, scrub. Only if subcaps have the same disadvantages and ship build and fit costs, and have to call for subcap fleets to protect them every time that they have to take a stargate. Change all subcap ships: price tag to 2 bill ISK, align time to 40s, max speed to 80m/s, no prop mods, no micro jumps, no warp bubble immunity, no tracking, etc Then we'll see if you go ahead and tell cap pilots to /just/ "bring a subcap support fleet, scrub." I have no idea what you're trying to convey with this, but it sounds ridiculous enough to not spend much time on. Try again. I think they're daring you to blob more. And forgetting some of the great things about carriers... refitting for higher align, pretty ok max speed, and pretty nice weapons systems for dealing with a variety of subcaps. Basically, why not call for ever bigger wreckingballs
That is a fantastic idea - since there are between 1500 and 1800 Titans in game they could be brought to good use.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 17:41:48 -
[73] - Quote
And i repeat myself - its a CYNOjammer - not a jump/warp/gate whatever jammer. Its meant to stop a fleet from entering a strategical system via directly cynoing into it - not more not less.
Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:04:04 -
[74] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Dwissi wrote:And i repeat myself - its a CYNOjammer - not a jump/warp/gate whatever jammer. Its meant to stop a fleet from entering a strategical system via directly cynoing into it - not more not less.
Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again. Get rid of them. They don't add PVP value to the game. If we need anything right now, it's PVP value.
Well - i am not against creative ways to change how things are. If everyone is so concerned then let the covert ships equip both kinds of modules - a cyno generator OR a cyno jammer - that would create a counter for what people are so annoyed about.
It just starts looking like people work through a list in the style of: lets find something that hasnt been changed enough yet and lets make some random suggestion to change it.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 21:20:34 -
[75] - Quote
This entire discussion just proves more and more that timers are a dinosaur change. With todays alert methods plus the ability to integrate eve mail with external applications there is simply no need for them anymore. They are one of the main reasons for this stagnation after all.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
69
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 22:01:51 -
[76] - Quote
I used 'timers' for a reason - the entirety of it doesnt make any sense anymore. Eve is a multi-player game with a 24/7 player base. Timers are one of the reasons why people have more time flying around in other areas they shouldnt be in in the first place , they are the reason that logistsics is easier than doing your stuff at 'home' because you have loads of time to get back to whatever gets attacked meanwhile. Its like a turn-base mechanics in a game that else relies on real-time events.
The figures from the stream about having 1500-1800 titans in game is a good indicator that things are really wrong - and number of capitals stashed away is probably according to that number of titans. The timers make it a grind - all you big guys repeat that over and over that you are tired of it. No timers - no grind. Immediate results - problem solved.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 22:41:22 -
[77] - Quote
The number is not taken out of any context as its a simple figure of how many of them are ingame. A simple fact in itself that puts many other things into a different perspective.
As of your POS example - there are outposts and stations as well - what you describe is from many years ago where players didnt build stations yet. And i do agree - whatever the solution it sucks for someone. Everyone just tries desperately not to be part of the group that has to suck it up most.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 23:23:12 -
[78] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Dwissi wrote:The number is not taken out of any context as its a simple figure of how many of them are ingame. A simple fact in itself that puts many other things into a different perspective. I wasn't referring to the number of titans, but the "timers make it a grind, and you guys repeatedly say you hate grind". Dwissi wrote:As of your POS example - there are outposts and stations as well - what you describe is from many years ago where players didnt build stations yet. And i do agree - whatever the solution it sucks for someone. Everyone just tries desperately not to be part of the group that has to suck it up most. Thus the occupancy sov system, where timers don't play a part of it anymore. Seriously, removing reinforcement timers on POSes, POCOs etc would be a very, very bad move. I'm sure some players would love it for a while, because it would generate a fucktonne of forum ****/tears, but it's not sustainable in any way, shape or form. And that's the main part you have to think about when coming up with a suggestion, whether or not it's sustainable. Andy Landen's suggestion on cap travel, for example, would be sustainable in a strategy game where you don't have real life humans controlling the ships and waiting for hours to arrive at their destination. When you have to take into consideration that there ARE actual real life humans behind the controls, it's not so sustainable anymore, and his suggestion WOULD make caps a thing of the past.
'Sustainable' implies we have any idea why people move away from Eve - but we dont. We also have no idea how many players might stay in line to fill those gaps that would be created by the 'non-sustainable' idea. The last years have seen more 'hardcore' mode games than ever - because people dont want easy anymore.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 00:03:03 -
[79] - Quote
Cant resist: Your nuts - not mine
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 07:06:47 -
[80] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Dwissi wrote:Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again. Uhh, you do realize we have mobile cyno jammers?
Read again. Hint: words 'refresh' and 'mobile options'. If you didnt read all context dont try to be smart
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
73
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 06:27:58 -
[81] - Quote
As nice and romantic this sounds - thats not going to work. Sov is payed for and thus its concorde info pool that is published.
Opting in would mean other people will as well request changes - so jumps and kills will not be listed anymore , industry jobs etc etc - almost everything can be used for proper intel by the right persons and some effort. Sov is eve's endgame so to say - so if one wants to play with the big guys he/she has to take the consequences as well. You become a target in null - thats the price for it.
The map isnt the problem nor is the data - but like i said in another posting open roams who are simply looking for targets without regards to corporation or alliance relation.. These groups had their reason to exist as there was no real fighting going on in null - so pilots where looking for alternatives. Make your corporations and alliances attractive enough to get these pilots back into your business and these free roams will post a lesser threat to begin with.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 22:46:09 -
[82] - Quote
@Komi Taran I am sorry - but nobody forces anyone to have alts - this is by far the worst thing i have read so far. Learn to play with others instead of trying to solve a problem solely by yourself. Corporations and alliances are group oriented gameplay. Just because people lack the social skills to play as a team and dont trust each other to be able to do something right doesnt mean that you need to have an alt. Those are personal issues that in the real world actually lead to some serious questioning ones abilities to interact in a social environment.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 23:12:59 -
[83] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Dwissi wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Dwissi wrote:Back in 2012 or so there was a suggestion for mobile cyno jammers - refresh that idea in the probably still existing thread if you want more mobile options to stop a fleet but dont try to make a perfectly fine module into something completely perverted again. Uhh, you do realize we have mobile cyno jammers? Read again. Hint: words 'refresh' and 'mobile options'. If you didnt read all context dont try to be smart Mobile cyno jammers would have never worked in any capacity more powerful than they do now, any anyone who thought so was deluding themselves. So no, what's implemented is the most anybody could have realistically asked for. My original point still stands. We have mobile cyno jammers.
Try again - you snipped the wrong part. We where dealing with system cyno jammers and thatsonly a part of a my reply you referred to - thus out of context. Just read everything - the 'i snip what i like to so i can troll out of context' isnt working here.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grrr everyone
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:12:42 -
[84] - Quote
@Andy Landen
I am all in for delivering different point of views, fancy suggestions and so on.
But you have to make a clear difference between making a suggestion and then let it rest for people to make up their mind and reacting to being trolled and criticized for your suggestion.
You kept on reacting to critics and continued to make the same point over and over again without delivering any new argument to support your case - so the whole discussion looks like a troll-match by now for people from the outside. You didnt do your own case any favour by continuing to react the way you reacted.
If you want serious reactions to a suggestion then you also have to understand when to stop the re-bashing else you lose your own credibility - however great your idea might be.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
78
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:20:10 -
[85] - Quote
edited out
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
|
|
|