EVE Search - Sticky:[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 38 post(s)
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 106	Posted - 2014.10.09 19:51:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: a) it's not immediately obvious that this will be particularly viable in practice, and b) if it is, we'll just nerf it. And you call it a sandbox?
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 108	Posted - 2014.10.09 19:56:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Greyscale, could you explain, why do you allow capitals to go through the gates? What is the reasoning behind it? And maybe it would be enough to let them through regional gates only?
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 108	Posted - 2014.10.09 21:12:00 - [3] - Quote Adrie Atticus wrote: Industrials are paper thin. orly?
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 108	Posted - 2014.10.09 21:17:00 - [4] - Quote As for the Rorqual, consider this: - 10 LY range; - no fatigue bonuses.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 109	Posted - 2014.10.10 10:21:00 - [5] - Quote Burneddi wrote: Dream Five wrote: There's no smooth progressive nerfing of JF range, anywhere under 10 will cut off Stain and Drone regions entirely while leaving (i think) all other regions mostly intact. The map just wasn't designed for sub-10 ly jumps. Such a change would be simply unfair to some of the existing inhabitants. The map wasn't designed for jumps in the first place. The map was designed with static complexes, are they bringing them back too?
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 14:26:00 - [6] - Quote 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.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 14:45:00 - [7] - Quote Dwissi wrote: 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. I'm not against any changes to mining, as it is indeed too dumb. But what CCP present to us now is not a mining revamp, they have some other unrelated goals in mind. So it's reasonable to keep status quo with Rorqual and mining in general for now. And it means they better keep the current roles, which are fulfilled by the Rorq. This roles include, as I mentioned above, POS service for example.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 14:54:00 - [8] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: To be fair, I would be a no on JF concessions. If you can't keep your space due to logisitics... then take some space that you can manage logistically. That would be hisec. Or wormholes, or lowsec. Because there is already too little initiative to live in null. Take a look a this table and tell me, why should one mine gneiss instead of kernite?
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 14:55:00 - [9] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: This gives me more reason to put a NO against it. You're asking for a way around fatigue. I'm asking for less mess with cynos.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 15:07:00 - [10] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I'm not saying I don't agree with you that Null mining needs works. But if you feel that way then don't live in null. Seriously we had none of the crap you guys do today in 2006-2007 and it was definitely worth it to live in null back then. Since then, there was a long chain of nerfs to nullsec income sources. Also, the grass was greener.

Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 110	Posted - 2014.10.20 15:53:00 - [11] - Quote Mark Hadden wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: I'm asking for less mess with cynos. so, may be, just may be, CCP doesn't want you to travel those distances in easy mode anymore, to start with? The whole purpose of Phoebe is to make Eve feel some bigger again, you are silly to stand up and moan about too much mess with cynos in order to do what you do today - you are not supposed to, its the whole point. I didnt stand up until I was asked for. CCP Grayscale obviously doesnt know what to do about Rorqual, and wanted our advice. I expressed my opinion. Did you? No, Instead you try to shut my mouth. And if you compare trading drone bonuses for 10LY range (as suggested by others) and trading 90% fatigue bonus for 10LY range (suggested by me), you'll see that you're getting primaried the wrong person.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.21 14:03:37 - [12] - Quote 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.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.21 14:33:00 - [13] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: 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. And capital ships are meant to be rare and expensive.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.21 14:54:55 - [14] - Quote Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote: you underestimate the autism that comes from EVE the same way one of the devs thought there wasn't going to be anymore than a dozen of titans in the game and here we are Guess it was Grayscale. I understand the reasoning behind allowing capitals to jump through gates, but I suppose the consequences of this were seriously underestimated. Battles at cynojammer POS were always a real, meaningful sub-capital PVP (if we're talking about large scale conflicts). What we'll see in the future - is who can dogpile more capitals to the gate. And black ops will become much safer for attackers, if they sneak a triage carrier and a dread into the target system and log them off.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.21 17:08:36 - [15] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Login traps are dishonorable, therefore you are dishonorable. Would you really steath seed a carrier/dread combo into a system to kill 1 rorq? Yes. Because I can. And honor, in my EVE?! God forbid.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.21 17:13:38 - [16] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: It definitely needs a full overhaul at some point, that's on our to-do list. If you're happy to keep the drones for now, that's a useful data point. He said he wants drones IF you get Rorqual viable in the belt. Not something I can imagine.
Skia Aumer Atlas Research Group 112	Posted - 2014.10.28 20:52:03 - [17] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: Arronicus wrote: ... consider reducing the size of i-hubs to fit within a jump freighter? Great point, thanks for bringing it up. This is definitely something we might follow up on in a future release. Let's everyone travel through gates, it's fun and stuff, yay! Oh wait, it's difficult. Alright, everyone turn back to jumpdrive. You CAN import IHUBs via the wormholes, so what's the buzz? You are about to ruin the only viable freighter ops (they are real! I've seen them!) only to assist some imaginary little-guy-who-cannot-scan-wormholes. Seriously?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.