Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
647
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:46:58 -
[1] - Quote
Travel changes are coming in Phoebe. In this latest Dev Blog by CCP Greyscale you can find the final and complete list of changes that are on their way. See them all here.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
Orkasm
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
141
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:51:20 -
[2] - Quote
I'd love to but...... |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:51:50 -
[3] - Quote
Welp |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:04:56 -
[4] - Quote
I also think the rorq staying with the drone bonus is exceptionally silly, but at least we've got a clear answer we can plan on. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
745
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:43 -
[5] - Quote
Rorqual known to be broken, releasing anyway.
Don't worry, CCP has an EXCELLENT record for fixing things after release. Only sometimes it takes a few years. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
949
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:11:04 -
[6] - Quote
Yeah. I gotta be honest GÇö my fear of the Rorqual getting trampled in its balance pass is pretty high, now. The trade of drone damage for jump range was a no-brainer and had unilateral support.
I guess it could be worse GÇö I could still be running POS right now. Glad I divested that stuff months ago.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
72
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:12:15 -
[7] - Quote
Changes in bold. Explanations in italics.
Plaintext is for loosers hu?
That devblog is terrible to read. Use more paragraphes and plaintext - seriously. Worst devblog ever not considering content. Which might or might not be bad. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1386
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:18:44 -
[8] - Quote
The Rorqual - We didn't want that ship to have a purpose anyway. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3610
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:23:43 -
[9] - Quote
Arcos Vandymion wrote: Changes in bold. Explanations in italics.
Plaintext is for loosers hu?
That devblog is terrible to read. Use more paragraphes and plaintext - seriously. Worst devblog ever not considering content. Which might or might not be bad.
Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. |
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:30:25 -
[10] - Quote
If the usual gaggle of whiners can only come up with complaining about Rorqual drones, I would like to say the long needed projection nerf is a smashing success.
|
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:32:06 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit.
Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3610
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:35:04 -
[12] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit.
In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision. |
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:35:31 -
[13] - Quote
You really want the rorqual in belts don't you?
If you are intent on keeping the Rorqual a mining support ship than why even bother with the large generic cargo hold, or fleet hangar?
If you see the real need that exists for something between a freighter and a JF, than recognize that and give us something.
Honestly it seems the role of compression is being handled well by the pos arrays, and mining bonuses could be handled by something else smaller and more agile. With the buff to the holds on most the mining ships, I think the few minutes of lost productivity warping to a pos and dumping minerals in an array is an acceptable loss.
But the combat capable, smaller than a JF hauling role that many people are using the Rorqual for, seems like the obvious choice you should be making.
Free the whales.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:47:05 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Thank you for some feedback.
This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range?
From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead.
Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there?
The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious.
We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped.
*Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1361
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:50:05 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit. In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Just query your user stats on the number of PvP kills involving a Rorqual dealing damages with drones. BAM. Input solved
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
TheButcherPete
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
514
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:54:10 -
[16] - Quote
Welp, goodbye to the Rorqual being useful as a smaller, but cheaper and easier to fly JF for smaller jobs
Just remove the goddamned drone bonus, it's ******* useless anyway. I've been playing this game for 5 years and I've heard of ONE instance where a dude ratting with a Rorq on field. That was in 2011 just before you ****** over Drone Hordes. Btw he doesn't play now. He literally would rather play WoW.
[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO
If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]
|
Meltur
Balanced Unity Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:54:11 -
[17] - Quote
Rorqual -> capital mining ship
problem solved |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
746
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:55:35 -
[18] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Just query your user stats on the number of PvP kills involving a Rorqual dealing damages with drones. BAM. Input solved
I have a more comprehensive solution.
Count how many drones were launched by rorquals.
Compare to how many light years were jumped by Rorquals in the same period. |
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:00:16 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit. In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Is the rorqual ever going to be a priority? Are you guys ever going to put out a real concept for feedback? Do you have one?
Short term, remove the velocity penalty for sieging... I'd be willing to risk it on field to replace a hauling toon since that's already risking a freighter. There is no combination of DPS/Tank siege can impart that won't be completely overpowered (of useless if not overpowered), and the only issue with it will be rorquals stuffed full of compressed ore being able to warp off (if they don't get caught).
Make the capital shield reps, tractor beam, and drone bonus useful... let the whale warp!!! I'll have a rorqual on field in Rhea if it's not pre-tackled by being useful. |
Sentenced 1989
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
118
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Can we get updated excel spreadsheet on various jump ranges and fatigues and what not, wanna know how this exactly affects my blops and to lazy to do math on my own :)
The Incursion Guild
QA Combat Analyze
Incursion Layout Builder
|
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
228
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:08:31 -
[21] - Quote
Little Bobby Tables
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
858
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:13:39 -
[22] - Quote
Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:17:11 -
[23] - Quote
what about the new tug boat does it also get the 90% reduction treatment. it was not mentioned in the dev blog.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:18:08 -
[24] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?
I am thinking 95%...
though to be certain jump on SISI
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:23:28 -
[25] - Quote
Querns wrote:Yeah. I gotta be honest GÇö my fear of the Rorqual getting trampled in its balance pass is pretty high, now. The trade of drone damage for jump range was a no-brainer and had unilateral support.
I guess it could be worse GÇö I could still be running POS right now. Glad I divested that stuff months ago.
indeed i would have been happy with the removal of the drone damage and have the distance up to 10ly and have the SMA restirctions lifted... that would have made me super stoked.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:23:53 -
[26] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Altrue wrote:Just query your user stats on the number of PvP kills involving a Rorqual dealing damages with drones. BAM. Input solved I have a more comprehensive solution. Count how many drones were launched by rorquals. Compare to how many light years were jumped by Rorquals in the same period.
Or how many rorquals actually have the industrial core or clone vat bay fit.
If you legitimately are looking for feedback than start a Rorqual feedback thread and commit to making changes in the release after phoebe. |
Mordecai Heller
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:28:50 -
[27] - Quote
Woah, even titans?
Casual capital losses ahoy! |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:30:59 -
[28] - Quote
Greyscale- Seriously, please look at this thread related to CCP's Rorqual Comments at Fanfest/on Twitter:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4539226#post4539226
This is from the beginning of May- nearly 6 months ago.
How many more months will pass before major changes are made to the Rorqual? Even if it takes several more years to balance, there is still a function for the ship in the logistical role it provides. Without the jump distance, the multi billion isk ship turns into purely a POS ornament for mining teams.
Run any poll or report on Rorquals- you will see that the drones are hardly ever used in comparison to the jump distance.
CCP Greyscale wrote:we landed marginally on the side of [drone bonus].
Please realize that this "landing marginally" on the drone bonus instead of jump range only hurts the players and provides no added benefit whatsoever. |
Katrina Bekers
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
227
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:36:40 -
[29] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Little Bobby Tables
http://xkcd.com/327/
In case someone didn't get the quote.
<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
|
Dentia Caecus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:41:10 -
[30] - Quote
Maybe I am an idiot, but I am having a difficult time understanding precisely what fatigue does. (Cooldown is self evident - a player cannot jump until that timer expires, right?) Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?
Thanks. |
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
746
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:42:30 -
[31] - Quote
Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses: -5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level 10% bonus to bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode 50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level. 20% bonus to Jump drive distance (Was 20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.)
Role Bonuses: 900% bonus to the range of survey scanners 200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners 99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules 99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously.
Done. Not many has Capital Industrial Ship skill trained beyond 1 or 3 anyway, so now they'll have a reason. |
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:43:13 -
[32] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:Maybe I am an idiot, but I am having a difficult time understanding precisely what fatigue does. (Cooldown is self evident - a player cannot jump until that timer expires, right?) Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?
Thanks.
Cool down = Fatigue at the time of jump * 10%
Fatigue is a running counter for calculating how bad cool down will be, it grows exponentially. |
Jackson Apollo
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:20:18 -
[33] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:Can someone use really small words and better explain precisely what fatigue does?
It took me a two blogs to work it out. (assuming i even understand)
Jumping without a gate hurts your brain.
Jump Fatigue represents how long the migraine lasts.
The cooldown is 10% of the total fatigue time (or how long the migraine lasts) before you can handle jumping again without your head exploding.
something like that
Jump => pain => time to recover before making the pain last longer.
ok i give up |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
341
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:28:03 -
[34] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)? If your using a BlOps to jump your BR 8 ly, you will receive 10*(1+8*0.1*0.5) minutes (=14) of fatigue.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:34:32 -
[35] - Quote
As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
951
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:38:53 -
[36] - Quote
Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:38:59 -
[37] - Quote
Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.
I don't understand the basis of your argument here, considering that all of the large coalitions have given up vast swaths of space and Phoebe hasn't even hit yet. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3611
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:42:12 -
[38] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Thank you for some feedback. This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range? From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead. Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there? The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious. We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped. *Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed
The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people.
All that said, as previously we're prepared to revisit that decision, but we don't feel like we have a strong enough case for doing so yet.
Sentenced 1989 wrote:Can we get updated excel spreadsheet on various jump ranges and fatigues and what not, wanna know how this exactly affects my blops and to lazy to do math on my own :)
SDE update should be out before patchday.
Soldarius wrote:Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)?
As per the line about covert portals in the blog, the covert portal bonus multiplies with other bonuses. So, 95% reduction in that case, purely because it keeps the math clean.
MeBiatch wrote:what about the new tug boat does it also get the 90% reduction treatment. it was not mentioned in the dev blog.
That's because it's scheduled for Rhea in December :) |
|
Dentia Caecus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:43:29 -
[39] - Quote
Thanks to Jackson Apollo and Opner Dresden. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3611
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:43:34 -
[40] - Quote
Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen.
If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. |
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:44:05 -
[41] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:I don't understand the basis of your argument here, considering that all of the large coalitions have given up vast swaths of space and Phoebe hasn't even hit yet. It's harder than it used to but it's certainly not impossible. And people usually overreact, then adapt. I fully expect "the big guys" to reclaim (in the long run) a large slice of what they gave up on "in anticipation of Phoebe". Especially after the fatigue-burn-alliance-alts get sufficiently trained up.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
320
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:47:44 -
[42] - Quote
Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. do the math on the network of characters you need to do this
then do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot
come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:48:28 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. No(t much) offense here, but let's be realistic - if you don't nip this in the not-yet-sprouted bud, you're setting yourself up for major pain in the more distant future when things start hitting the proverbial fan. Whereas right now, all you would REALLY need to do (on a conceptual level, implementation might be less straightforward) is to add a SUPERCAPS ONLY jump fatigue ship attribute, and whenever a jump is to be performed, check both ship and pilot fatigue.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
320
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:49:22 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people
you could, somewhat trivially, tell the difference by doing some stats on things killed by rorqual drones
once you realize it happens like once every week, just send that guy an evemail and see what he says |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1635
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:51:41 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit. In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Has anyone ran damage stats on rorq drone damage done on TQ in say the last month?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:54:33 -
[46] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people.
I understand it is not easy to get a true representation of all opinions via the forums, but I implore you to look at the data behind Rorquals using drones in combat.
Furthermore, if possible, how many of those Rorquals used drones after doing more than a 5 ly jump.
OR EVEN BETTER
Run a report on how many active accounts with Rorquals actually have level 5 Capital Industrial Command for the full 100% drone bonus. Or just do a report on active Rorqual pilots and what their capital industrial command skill level is. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:56:29 -
[47] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive Most of the jump fatigue evasion relay pilots don't need to be fully trained - in fact, they can have a skeleton skillset. And you don't need to make ALL the jumps ALL the time - a few key ones will do just fine most of the time too, bringing the ship into or near systems with long-range inter-regional stargates. Combine that with other travel options and you have yourself a need of maybe 2 alts per active supercap to reach about half the map in not a lot longer than you used to be able to (and drastically less time than you could "honestly" do).
Yeah, it's not TOO cheap, but for the same force projection capability, it's a lot cheaper than having many more fully trained pilots with extra supercaps included stationed in various staging areas semipermanently.
P.S. Anyway, even if it would be AT FIRST prohibitively expensive, the price will keep going down in time while ISK income levels keep rising, making it "cheaper" from two fronts at once. Why not proactively make a tiny additional adjustment to prevent even the possibility of it happening much later on? It's not like the workload to add this change to the existing changes would constitute a major timesink in comparison... while saving you a lot of potential grief later down the road.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
341
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:57:51 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. I'm going to stock up on popcorn for when you "clamp down" on people with multiple accounts that can fly capitals. And the so-called work-around above is not what I'm thinking of.
|
nospet
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:57:51 -
[49] - Quote
So what happens if the station you are in gets taken over and your med clone is there?
Are you stuck in the station for a year? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1635
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:58:59 -
[50] - Quote
Akita T wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive Most of the jump fatigue evasion relay pilots don't need to be fully trained - in fact, they can have a skeleton skillset. And you don't need to make ALL the jumps ALL the time - a few key ones will do just fine most of the time too, bringing the ship into or near systems with long-range inter-regional stargates. Combine that with other travel options and you have yourself a need of maybe 2 alts per active supercap to reach about half the map in not a lot longer than you used to be able to (and drastically less time than you could "honestly" do). Yeah, it's not TOO cheap, but for the same force projection capability, it's a lot cheaper than having many more fully trained pilots with extra supercaps included stationed in various staging areas semipermanently.
You also have to keep them plexed.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
951
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:02:56 -
[51] - Quote
I guess the swaps will happen in safespots, because trying to clown-car supercaps into a POS and do swaps without any of them getting A) bumped or 2) stolen would be about impossible.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:03:19 -
[52] - Quote
Aryth wrote:You also have to keep them plexed. Riight, so they can't possibly reside on already existing alt accounts used for other purposes...
Querns wrote:I guess the swaps will happen in safespots, because trying to clown-car supercaps into a POS and do swaps without any of them getting A) bumped or 2) stolen would be about impossible. Fleet up with own alt, meet at random safespot, defleet, join actual fleet. Just one option, I bet better ones exist.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
13100
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:07:03 -
[53] - Quote
Well I'm still not sure about the high-sec caps thing but hope you guys announce it well in advance so I can invite all pilots to pop the Veldnaught before the changes are introduced.
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1985
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:09:22 -
[54] - Quote
On the other hand, meh, why do I bother arguing? I don't have a vested interest in current nullsec power struggles and I don't even actively play that much anymore anyway. Plus, the screams when it will happen (fingers crossed for Goonswarm dispensing the lulz for added insult to injury) will be most delicious. I guess this was more of a late future reference "told you so" post spree.
Carry on, nothing to see here, move along now :P
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
Build your own EVE PC
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1559734
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1635
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:13:15 -
[55] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Aryth wrote:You also have to keep them plexed. Riight, so they can't possibly reside on already existing alt accounts used for other purposes... Querns wrote:I guess the swaps will happen in safespots, because trying to clown-car supercaps into a POS and do swaps without any of them getting A) bumped or 2) stolen would be about impossible. Fleet up with own alt, meet at random safespot, defleet, join actual fleet. Just one option, I bet better ones exist.
There is still a cost associated with that. Unless you are of the opinion slots are free if it isn't a main...
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
953
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:13:38 -
[56] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Aryth wrote:You also have to keep them plexed. Riight, so they can't possibly reside on already existing alt accounts used for other purposes... Querns wrote:I guess the swaps will happen in safespots, because trying to clown-car supercaps into a POS and do swaps without any of them getting A) bumped or 2) stolen would be about impossible. Fleet up with own alt, meet at random safespot, defleet, join actual fleet. Just one option, I bet better ones exist. No matter how the logistics work, it's just not feasible. We can prove this with actual math and examples, rather than the feelings and unsubstantiated hearsay we're currently employing in this conversation.
Consider the case of YA0 (a system in the middle of Deklein) to F2O (a system in the middle of the Delve / Querious area that, while we recently divested, is convenient for this example.)
The straightest shot route from A to B is 16 jumps. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,044/YA0-XJ:F2OY-X
Now, if we pack our alts perfectly, we need 6 dedicated fatigue-managing alt accounts with 16 different characters, plus a seventh account to hold the main supercap pilot itself.
A nyx sitter is about 9b. I pulled a thread from the Character Bazaar at random; if you feel like doing more work to normalize this number, feel free. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=277
So we are looking at a 144b outlay, plus 5.9b a month to support the accounts. For one route and one supercarrier.
Now multiply by 100, 200, 300, 400. Delve may be a rich region, but it ain't that rich!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3613
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:20:49 -
[57] - Quote
Akita T wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. No(t much) offense here, but let's be realistic - if you don't nip this in the not-yet-sprouted bud, you're setting yourself up for major pain in the more distant future when things start hitting the proverbial fan. Whereas right now, all you would REALLY need to do (on a conceptual level, implementation might be less straightforward) is to add a SUPERCAPS ONLY jump fatigue ship attribute, and whenever a jump is to be performed, check both ship and pilot fatigue. P.S. Also, what if it just happens in a "minor way"? Is that somehow more acceptable? Why?
It's a non-zero amount of work with a non-one chance of being needed, net work over time is lessened by playing "wait and see", and given that we've been very clear that we'll make changes if it becomes a big issue, if it happens our messaging strategy will be "told you so".
Yes, if it happens in a minor way, it's more acceptable, because that suggests that it is one option within a healthy ecosystem of other (cheaper) options. It's when something becomes a dominant strategy that it becomes problematic, because it's then making the game less interesting.
And if you're hoping to "I-told-you-so" later, will you also stand up and say "whoops, I was wrong" if it doesn't happen? :P
nospet wrote:So what happens if the station you are in gets taken over and your med clone is there?
Are you stuck in the station for a year?
From the blog:
Quote:You can always set your medical clone to your starter corporationGÇÖs HQ station.
Ie, you can *always* set your medical clone to your starter corporation's HQ station. The once-per-year thing is in addition to the above. |
|
Copper Khai
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:24:05 -
[58] - Quote
Quote:"WeGÇÖd like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but itGÇÖs a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec."
No, this will lead to titans sitting around Jita, just becasue. They will not be mysterious anymore.
Next you'll allow AFK macro dancing outside trade hubs. Terrible move, please rethink it. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3614
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:26:21 -
[59] - Quote
Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:Aryth wrote:You also have to keep them plexed. Riight, so they can't possibly reside on already existing alt accounts used for other purposes... Querns wrote:I guess the swaps will happen in safespots, because trying to clown-car supercaps into a POS and do swaps without any of them getting A) bumped or 2) stolen would be about impossible. Fleet up with own alt, meet at random safespot, defleet, join actual fleet. Just one option, I bet better ones exist. No matter how the logistics work, it's just not feasible. We can prove this with actual math and examples, rather than the feelings and unsubstantiated hearsay we're currently employing in this conversation. Consider the case of YA0 (a system in the middle of Deklein) to F2O (a system in the middle of the Delve / Querious area that, while we recently divested, is convenient for this example.) The straightest shot route from A to B is 16 jumps. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,044/YA0-XJ:F2OY-X Now, if we pack our alts perfectly, we need 6 dedicated fatigue-managing alt accounts with 16 different characters, plus a seventh account to hold the main supercap pilot itself. A nyx sitter is about 9b. I pulled a thread from the Character Bazaar at random; if you feel like doing more work to normalize this number, feel free. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=277 So we are looking at a 144b outlay, plus 5.9b a month to support the accounts. For one route and one supercarrier. Now multiply by 100, 200, 300, 400. Delve may be a rich region, but it ain't that rich!
To quote myself from here almost exactly a month ago:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Nova Fox wrote:So...
1. Jump Ship 2. Clone Exits Ship 3. Fresh Clone Enters Ship 4. Jump Ship 5. Exited Clone Body Jumps Home 6. Rinse Repeat Until destination. The actual logistics of doing this for a reasonable range of target systems are sufficiently involved that we do not expect it to happen in practice.
Could still turn out to be wrong, of course, but we'll see how it shakes out :) |
|
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:29:16 -
[60] - Quote
So now I can't jump from low-sec station to Venal station anymore. I guess we now have to stealth jump at the lowest peak hours... that's pretty sad for the extra small corps that wants to live in nullsec. |
|
Tash'k Omar
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
40
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:32:26 -
[61] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Seriously, keeping the drone bonus? That is used about the same as the walking in stations option
What's this walking in station's option? |
Turrann Dallocort
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:33:51 -
[62] - Quote
I'm not sure you understood the actual opinion stated by some of the rorq pilots in the previous thread. The trade off for a shorter jump range in exchange for a drone bonus is worth it ONLY if the rorq is being reworked NOW or in the very near future. But without that, you are asking us to hold on to a promise that you guys have been making for some time, every time a capability and benefit of the rorq is taken away, that the rorq will be getting a complete overhaul at some point and it is on the to do list. Asking us to hold on to a pretty much useless bonus for the here and now for the promise that sometime down the road (but who knows when) we will get to you isn't giving much for us to put our faith in. We are also giving up all these capabilities that are exclusive or special to the rorq not knowing what you have in store for us.
By the way, y'all promised back in late summer of 2012 that rats were also going to drop clothing items in loot and that never happened...... You want me to just trust you on this one too? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
321
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:34:24 -
[63] - Quote
Akita T wrote: Most of the jump fatigue evasion relay pilots don't need to be fully trained - in fact, they can have a skeleton skillset.
nope, because then they get absolutely murdered when a spy rats out the fleet of supercaps unable to online basic mods and you are minus one supercap fleet |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:35:19 -
[64] - Quote
Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat:
Rorqual zKillboard
People set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc.
Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
955
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:35:50 -
[65] - Quote
Baron Deathicon wrote:So now I can't jump from low-sec station to Venal station anymore. I guess we now have to stealth jump at the lowest peak hours... that's pretty sad for the extra small corps that wants to live in nullsec. Nah -- just mid in 5zxx instead. It's neutral!
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,444/Aunenen:5ZXX-K:H-PA29
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:36:16 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Thank you for some feedback. This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range? From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead. Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there? The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious. We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped. *Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people. All that said, as previously we're prepared to revisit that decision, but we don't feel like we have a strong enough case for doing so yet. [/quote]
What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?
There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.
And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?
If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" than give us an idea when that might be.
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:41:22 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use.
Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:42:12 -
[68] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat: Rorqual zKillboardPeople set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc. Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough.
The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If we need a 1/3 JF, there should be a 1/3 JF... Rorqual needs real love, not to be pigeon holed into being a super long train cheap logistics ship. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
264
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:42:30 -
[69] - Quote
nospet wrote:So what happens if the station you are in gets taken over and your med clone is there?
Are you stuck in the station for a year?
You can always switch your med clone to your starter corp's station in highsec. There's always a "get out of jail free" card there ;)
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:42:44 -
[70] - Quote
Querns wrote:Baron Deathicon wrote:So now I can't jump from low-sec station to Venal station anymore. I guess we now have to stealth jump at the lowest peak hours... that's pretty sad for the extra small corps that wants to live in nullsec. Nah -- just mid in 5zxx instead. It's neutral! http://evemaps.dotlan.net/jump/Moros,444/Aunenen:5ZXX-K:H-PA29
Thank you sir! |
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:44:10 -
[71] - Quote
GÇ£Ships in the following groups gain a 90% reduction to effective distance traveled: industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, freighter, industrial command ship, capital industrial ship, jump freighter.
This eases the impact of these changes on alliance logistics for the time being. We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we donGÇÖt feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.GÇ¥
No part of EVE is capable of self-sufficient access to the volumes consumed of all goods yet it is hard to read the above italics without reading it as planned obsolesce for the jump freighter and possibly others. At no point in history has the ability of the merchant to move goods become slower and more handicapped (volume, speed or distance) due to improvements in technology.
Baffling that in our space game you would do so but weGÇÖll have to see in a year or so what you intend. Ponder that at some point you will have to allow a GÇÿlifetime careerGÇÖ SP remap because you have made a specialized alt-toon (which you encouraged) obsolete.
|
Turrann Dallocort
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:45:27 -
[72] - Quote
You are very right. BUT, until they give it an update and make it rational to have it IN the belts where it COULD be tackled........
Opner Dresden wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat: Rorqual zKillboardPeople set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc. Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough. The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF. If we need a 1/3 JF, there should be a 1/3 JF... Rorqual needs real love, not to be pigeon holed into being a super long train cheap logistics ship.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:45:41 -
[73] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote: The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
198
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:47:56 -
[74] - Quote
Eodp Ellecon wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.
There are innovative use of techniques and there are blatant exploits to get around a purposeful intent of game design.
Innovative use of techniques usually has nothing to do with the game design intent.
|
Scatim Helicon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3065
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:49:33 -
[75] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?
There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.
And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?
I can only assume at this point that Greyscale is keeping the Rorqual drone bonus either as a hilarious CCP in-joke or as an attempt to win some sort of dare with one of his colleagues.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:50:52 -
[76] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Opner Dresden wrote: The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill
Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).
Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:58:16 -
[77] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Opner Dresden wrote: The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown). Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.
How many iskies do you loose by warping your mining toonies to a pos and dumping your ore in a compression array?
Since they increased the hold on most of the barges/exhumers, how much of a difference does warping off really make? |
Ghelisis Achasse
Scope Works
19
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:01:47 -
[78] - Quote
Quote: Carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers, titans and capital industrials can now use stargates, provided they do not lead into a highsec system. We want to reduce the usage of jump drives (see below), but we donGÇÖt also want to lock ships into particular systems. We also want to encourage more gate-to-gate traffic and allow more ships to use gates! WeGÇÖd like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but itGÇÖs a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec.
If you did this, you'd ALSO have to model completely new stargates. Hell, I don't think the carriers can fit into the stargates now. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:03:34 -
[79] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).
Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.
Right, if the Rorq were worth sieging at a belt, then yes, a drone bonus would be viable. But as you said, parking a Rorq at a belt is not viable- therefore, for the immediate changes coming up, dropping drone bonus for extended jump range makes sense- right?
Having increased drone damage on a ship that currently rarely sees belts for an extended period of time is laughable.
I realize the ship needs a full rework. "So does CCP". But they've been saying that for nearly a year now, and zero changes have come except this one. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3614
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:07:32 -
[80] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?
There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.
And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?
If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.
I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).
Eodp Ellecon wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. Couldn't resist but this reeks of space dictatorship that Any innovative use of techniques within self-proclaimed 'sandbox' game will absolutely positively be squashed or nerfed because it IS using the grey area that went undefined.
Any techniques that become a dominant strategy will be squashed or nerfed because a big part of the underlying value of a sandbox game is that there are lots of interesting decisions to make, and when some of those decisions collapse into a single best option that is a bad thing. Trying to keep innovative techniques possible is exactly why we're not clamping down hard on all the possible outcomes out of the gate.
Eodp Ellecon wrote:GÇ£Ships in the following groups gain a 90% reduction to effective distance traveled: industrial, blockade runner, deep space transport, freighter, industrial command ship, capital industrial ship, jump freighter.
This eases the impact of these changes on alliance logistics for the time being. We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we donGÇÖt feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.GÇ¥
No part of EVE is capable of self-sufficient access to the volumes consumed of all goods yet it is hard to read the above italics without reading it as planned obsolesce for the jump freighter and possibly others. At no point in history has the ability of the merchant to move goods become slower and more handicapped (volume, speed or distance) due to improvements in technology.
Baffling that in our space game you would do so but weGÇÖll have to see in a year or so what you intend. Ponder that at some point you will have to allow a GÇÿlifetime careerGÇÖ SP remap because you have made a specialized alt-toon (which you encouraged) obsolete.
Yup, no part of EVE is sufficiently self-sufficient to justify nerfing JFs yet. That's a thing we'd have to change before any further JF adjustments. |
|
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:07:52 -
[81] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Opner Dresden wrote: The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown). Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay. How many iskies do you loose by warping your mining toonies to a pos and dumping your ore in a compression array? Since they increased the hold on most of the barges/exhumers, how much of a difference does warping off really make?
You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:18:31 -
[82] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.
As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler ), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so ). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
321
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:28:57 -
[83] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote: You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.
i want a pony, which is equally relevant to the current discussion |
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:50:50 -
[84] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range. As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler ), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so ). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups.
But the JF range is only a band-aid anyway. It's going away. So why also temp-buff the rorq to continue supporting activity CCP has directly stated they want to make harder? If you can't jump capitals to defend a moon, logistics isn't important to it either. If you can jump capitals to it to defend it, the 90% fatigue and 5ly range isn't a problem.
In this, you're asking for 3-9 months of extended range and giving up a substantial bonus on a ship that can be useful with a few small database tweaks. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:53:26 -
[85] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range. As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler ), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so ). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups.
It may be more work but isn't warping the rorq in and out a feasible alternative? You certainly don't need the drone bonus for that.
If you're just hauling ore you could refit lows to I-stabs and surely you could find a spot on one of your barges for webs.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:
What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?
There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.
And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?
If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.
I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).
Hearing this is better than nothing and at least tells us where you are at with a full pass. But the drone damage for jump distance swap still seems to make more sense in the short term. |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
131
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:54:08 -
[86] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:In this, you're asking for 3-9 months of extended range and giving up a substantial bonus on a ship that can be useful with a few small database tweaks. Substantial bonus? Substantial for what? |
Brystina
Serenity Rising LLC 404 Alliance Not Found
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:08:56 -
[87] - Quote
Nice xkcd reference in the jump fatigue example. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:19:10 -
[88] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:[ It may be more work but isn't warping the rorq in and out a feasible alternative? You certainly don't need the drone bonus for that.
If you're just hauling ore you could refit lows to I-stabs and surely you could find a spot on one of your barges for webs.
That's what was implied as a hauler- that is basically the current use if you're using it a belt. It's a glorified hauler that can fit a cloak or jump out if hostiles are in the system.
Even then, at a certain capacity, even a rorqual is not enough haul for the job (that's where a freighter comes in) |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
808
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:26:50 -
[89] - Quote
I see the rise of the moon mining Rorqual. Person finds an active pos moon mining array in a pos that is working, anchors nearby (say anywhere between 150 to 250km away from the pos), activates modules, 1 to 2 hours later, The Rorqual Pilot gain 2 days worth of moongoop. Moon goes into temporary shock, and any moon mining array that was on it stops mining and can't continue to mine till 2 days pass.
Moonshock. The moons resources have been irradiated and extracted. Moon recovery in progress. A countdown starts. Once over, the moon can be mined again.
The Rorqual can only extract out of moons currently being mined (have to have an active pos, and moon miner array going (either you or someone).
The Rorqual will not be attacked automatically by pos guns (can warp to, around, and away from pos's without the automatic targetting systems firing upon it (same as the Siphon Unit).
Industrial Core. The industrial core takes approximately 1 to 3 minutes to activate. Once activated, the Rorqual pilot is removed from local, and can activate a cloaking device while in this mode. The core will begin extracting moon minerals from the moon till either the cycle is complete, or the Rorqual is destroyed. There is a fuel cost to activate the industrial core (comparable to approximately 2 days worth of Fuel for a medium pos give or take).
The Industrial Core can only be activated on a target moon.
Upgrade to Ore Belts. Some Ore Belt anomalies now contain micro moons. Dead parts of planetoids that cannot be mined with a regular barge, but can be with a Rorqual. Rorqual targets it in the same fashion as a moon listed above. After 2 hours, the micro moon will be destroyed, and all of its contents deposited into the Rorqual.
Micromoons can only spawn in Ore Belts and Sigs in .4 space and below.
There you go. You give players a method of active moon mining, theft, knocking out resources, etc etc, through use of the Rorqual. This doesn't speed up moon mining as the moon goes into shock, and can't produce any more goop till the time has expired (so no backend mass moon mining via Rorqual).
Its a ridiculous plan but that ship needs to do something significant.
Yaay!!!!
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:22:17 -
[90] - Quote
no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:24:36 -
[91] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. do the math on the network of characters you need to do this then do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive
didnt they say that about titans... how they were so expensive only a few would ever be made?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
957
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:24:47 -
[92] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog It's not even coming until Rhea. Calm down.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2012
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:27:06 -
[93] - Quote
Querns wrote:MeBiatch wrote:no one answered my question about the tug boat will it also have the 90% reduction in fatigue... this was not covered in the blog It's not even coming until Rhea. Calm down.
k but its getting the fatigue bonus thing right?
Sorry for some reason i thoguht it was shipping on Wednesday.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
131
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:29:56 -
[94] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. do the math on the network of characters you need to do this then do the math on what it would cost to just buy a second supercarrier and supercarrier alt and stick it in the second spot come back once you've realized the pilot network is like a billion times more expensive didnt they say that about titans... how they were so expensive only a few would ever be made? Apples, meet oranges. You're different.
MeBiatch wrote:though i do not see any alliance taking back the blue doughnut just wont work with the eventuallity of the "free form occupation" sov model. I've no idea what you're getting at with this. |
Tribalist
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 00:07:13 -
[95] - Quote
CCP can you do us a favor and reduce the timer on a cyno. With the current jump fatigue system we no longer need a 10 minute cyno.
I might recommend reducing it to 5 minutes for a normal Cyno, with the Recon Bonus for Recon ships reducing it as normal. It's not like we will be using to to chain back and forth anymore. |
PerrinBash
All The Rage
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 00:08:24 -
[96] - Quote
Right, so with dumbing down of eve your now allowing any active account to unlimited (basically) training, changed all the reprocessing, allow all of hi sec harassment and bumping as fair play, revamp of all manufacturing and research, making most skills to level 5 a thing of past, and don't allow freighters mid slots or rigs, or any capacity to defend themselves. Your moving toward the end game, lets just make it happen. Select the top 15% of SP players to get jovian technology and let us wreck eve, or....just keep chipping away at it bit by bit. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:18:11 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. Seriously? You can justify pretty much anything by saying "there are probably people who are satisfied who didn't bother replying." If you're going to introduce easily avoidable cognitive biases like that, you diminish the quality of feedback you receive.
CCP Greyscale wrote:The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people. No, that's not the only way. You could have made a separate thread specifically putting both options on the table and asked which one players would have preferred. You don't just throw up your hands and say "well people who didn't post could be on board with this idea, so we don't know what they want".
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
kiu Nakamura
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:22:07 -
[98] - Quote
Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19
1) Covert
Quote:Ships using a Covert Jump Portal similarly gain a 50% reduction to effective distance traveled for that jump; this multiplies with other similar bonuses.
So a Blockade Runner being BLOPSed to a covert cyno has a 95% distance bonus?
2) Fatigue in minutes Not sure why you changed fatigue from the previous devblog from an arbitary number to be used as time now.
As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for.
3) Max time Greyscale mentioned a maximum cap of 30days, but this isnt mentioned in the latest devblog. Is this no longer the case?
4) Shameless plug Checkout http://fatigue.501gu.de it should be matching the latest devblog. |
Eigenvalue
Suay Tii Suk Brave Collective
102
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:24:36 -
[99] - Quote
I for one am really excited to sit in station not playing eve while timers run down!
Are any tools being provided to help FC's know what the jump timer maximum is across their fleet or the fatigue of individual members? Subcap fleets titan or jump bridging will be logistically impossible without always screwing over someone who was stupid enough to use a jump bridge for a prior fleet.
I'm really excited to be typing in my fatigue counter into fleet chat and spending another 45 minutes on form up negotiating fatigue numbers with FCs and Pilots.
Equally fun will be fleets requiring no fatigue to join etc.
Just tons of excitement in store!
Although - I guess what you should be doing is just blopsing around in BR to your destination ship cache and staging from there thereby avoiding fatigue at all. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
344
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:41:18 -
[100] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:k but its getting the fatigue bonus thing right? The fatigue bonus is tied to the "hauler" ship type. So, assuming the ship designed to haul assembled ships around is of the "hauler" type, then it should.
|
|
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions
418
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:44:28 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:
What would make you feel there was a strong enough case?
There have been several ideas given win this thread as to metrics you could run on the existing Rorqual population to determine how common drone use is, or how many people are using it in a mining support role.
And as I've said if you really do want full feedback on the Rorq, why not open a thread for that?
If the answer is simply "we'll look at it at a later date" then give us an idea when that might be.
I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources). This is a pretty crucial ship, and I would suggest it should be top priority along with the recon / blacktops / T3 rebalance before any other changes are looked at. A lot of people are waiting in anticipation for these changes.
|
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 01:46:13 -
[102] - Quote
Just going to say for the record, these changes are terrible. Jump fatigue combined with extreme jump range reductions is an excessively drastic change in gameplay. These changes are a quick and cheap way to fix another problem of ship classes needing balanced that have not been addressed(primarily carriers multirole abilities and the ability for titans to daisy chain bridges across new eden). Anyways this patch is going to have a minor break period in the current nullsec stagnation while things reorganize. Once people get settled in its going to be even more stagnant than it was before since you've overly limited the ability to travel. |
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1209
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 02:58:10 -
[103] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:If the usual gaggle of whiners can only come up with complaining about Rorqual drones, I would like to say the long needed projection nerf is a smashing success.
Prettymuch this. Complaining about an absolute non-issue.
While the advantage of my JDC5 on all my cap pilots feels lessened, (Oh well, boo hoo), changes look to have been adjusted to a good place. Especially considering when the goons start ferrying everyone about in t1 industrials, that can get dealt with in december. |
JamnOne
Jammin Corp Jammin Mad
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 03:17:02 -
[104] - Quote
Remember when Caps were allowed in hi sec space and then one night they all disappeared. Now several years later you want to bring caps back into hi sec. Sweet!
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2949
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 04:36:24 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot?
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions
418
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 04:41:18 -
[106] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot? Lol, you sound like your really happy with yourself for thinking of a clever workaround. But what you said would mean they'd need a character and a capital ship in each area they want to operate, which is pretty much what the changes are meant to achieve. So hardly power projection in the current sense. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:00:42 -
[107] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Querns wrote:Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway. I would like to see this actually happen. If it does in a major way, we'll clamp down on it, just as we will with any of the other suggested workarounds should they actually see widespread use. Oh really? What if players preposition both ships and pilots. Then power is projected by logging into the proper account and selecting the proper alt. How will you clamp down on that? Restrict all players to one account with just one pilot? Here's a thought: CCP could make this game subscriber based so that it would be way too expensive to do this. Oh wait.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:04:53 -
[108] - Quote
Magnificient. I love to see how CCP resolved the "game being too small" problem by making us smaller, not the map bigger. Hallelujah on Seagull's new space anyway. Rest are details. Still fun too see how many people got blinded by those details. And absolutely predictible. Grats CCP. At least once you managed to "outsmart" the playerbase. Or, ohwell, at least a distinctive part of it. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6478
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:18:59 -
[109] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Grats CCP. At least once you managed to "outsmart" the playerbase. heh heh
Only possible response
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Fraucha Tanakoh
Lom Corporation Shadow of xXDEATHXx
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:28:24 -
[110] - Quote
Sorry, you lost me at "mental fatigue"
I was under the impression that ships used computers to calculate jumps.
If we are factoring Mental Fatigue....I would be ok if this were the DUNE universe where Navigators actually calculate and move the ships with their minds. So, far, you have not given adequate reason why a human, pushing a few buttons on a computer would suffer such mental fatigue.
Had you said that the SHIP'S Engines need some sort of cool down time, yeah, I would go for that. But, you have already blamed the entire thing on the living being not the machine. So based on the human factor, the whole fatigue process is faulty. Seriously, folks, you run a science fiction universe and yet you totally play the "fantasy mana' card |
|
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1209
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 05:47:25 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Thank you for some feedback. This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range? From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead. Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there? The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious. We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped. *Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people. All that said, as previously we're prepared to revisit that decision, but we don't feel like we have a strong enough case for doing so yet.
In the discussion thread, I don't remember if there was any other Rorqual pilots doing so, but I personally stated a desire to keep the drone bonus over the jump range, for reasons that the range is going to get reduced regardless, whereas the drone bonus will be highly beneficial when the rorqual is worth using in a boat, so flip flopping the bonus off and on again seems counter-productive. Given that most rorqual pilots do not actually use their rorqual for long distance hauling, and that a jump plus a few gates or two jumps (with 90% fatigue reduction) will cover most if not all distances for alternative mining sites you'd swap back and forth between, I can't see the 10ly bonus being of much necessity, beyond trying to move your rorqual in or out of a region.
TL:DR I am in favour of keeping the bonus over the range, and argued so in the previous discussion thread. |
Terraj Oknatis
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:18:48 -
[112] - Quote
Gate movement Carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers, titans and capital industrials can now use stargates, provided they do not lead into a highsec system. We want to reduce the usage of jump drives (see below), but we donGÇÖt also want to lock ships into particular systems. We also want to encourage more gate-to-gate traffic and allow more ships to use gates!
WeGÇÖd like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but itGÇÖs a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec.
Ok so basically Rorquals will have their place on the field in high sec asteroid belts. Im sure the whalers are going to love this! |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1581
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:26:07 -
[113] - Quote
"WeGÇÖd like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but itGÇÖs a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec."
EVERYBODY PANIC |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
75
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 07:06:06 -
[114] - Quote
Fraucha Tanakoh wrote:Sorry, you lost me at "mental fatigue" I was under the impression that ships used computers to calculate jumps. If we are factoring Mental Fatigue....I would be ok if this were the DUNE universe where Navigators actually calculate and move the ships with their minds. So, far, you have not given adequate reason why a human, pushing a few buttons on a computer would suffer such mental fatigue. Had you said that the SHIP'S Engines need some sort of cool down time, yeah, I would go for that. But, you have already blamed the entire thing on the living being not the machine. So based on the human factor, the whole fatigue process is faulty. Seriously, folks, you run a science fiction universe and yet you totally play the "fantasy mana' card
he basically made it up since ccp can no longer afford lore writers and laid them off.. get ready.. cause we're about to have permadeath and dark elf destroyers.. titans are going to be able to jump to jove space.. which basically is going to be the unicorn(cow) level.. watch, wait and see..
I totally agree with you on your comment. |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 08:09:59 -
[115] - Quote
Still bad formattings. Remove italics, this text fills about 90% of content. |
Darius Caliente
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
92
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 08:29:20 -
[116] - Quote
Quote: Bobby Tables makes three 5LY jumps in his Archon. When he makes the first jump, he has no fatigue or cooldown, so incurs the minimum fatigue value (10 * (1+5) = 60 minutes) and the minimum cooldown value (1+5 = 6 minutes). When he makes the second jump, he has waited for 6 minutes, so his fatigue is 54 minutes before the jump, and 54 * (1 + 5) = 324 minutes after. His cooldown would be 5.4 minutes (10% of fatigue), but the minimum is 6 minutes so he has another 6 minute cooldown. When he makes the third jump, his fatigue is 318 minutes (waiting 6 minutes again), and becomes 318 * (1 + 6) = 1908 minutes. His cooldown is 31.8 minutes, or 31 minutes 48 seconds.
There's a typo in the bold section.
My understanding is that it should be 318 * (1+5) = 1908, but I suppose the intention could be that it's 318 * (1+6) = 2226. I sincerely hope it's the first one because otherwise my understanding of this mechanic has just gone out the window. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3616
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 10:06:04 -
[117] - Quote
kiu Nakamura wrote:Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19 1) Covert Quote:Ships using a Covert Jump Portal similarly gain a 50% reduction to effective distance traveled for that jump; this multiplies with other similar bonuses.
So a Blockade Runner being BLOPSed to a covert cyno has a 95% distance bonus? 2) Fatigue in minutes As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for. 3) Max time Nullarbor mentioned a fatigue cap of 30days, but this isnt mentioned in the latest devblog. Is this no longer the case? http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2jwwn9/jump_fatigue_calculator/clg0a2w 4) Shameless plug Checkout http://fatigue.501gu.de it should be matching the latest devblog.
1) Yes, as answered earlier :)
2) If we did that, the math is no longer straightforward above 10 minutes, because at 11 minutes we're displaying 1 minute but going to 66 minutes after a 5LY jump.
3) Yes, I'll get that edited in.
Darius Caliente wrote:Quote: Bobby Tables makes three 5LY jumps in his Archon. When he makes the first jump, he has no fatigue or cooldown, so incurs the minimum fatigue value (10 * (1+5) = 60 minutes) and the minimum cooldown value (1+5 = 6 minutes). When he makes the second jump, he has waited for 6 minutes, so his fatigue is 54 minutes before the jump, and 54 * (1 + 5) = 324 minutes after. His cooldown would be 5.4 minutes (10% of fatigue), but the minimum is 6 minutes so he has another 6 minute cooldown. When he makes the third jump, his fatigue is 318 minutes (waiting 6 minutes again), and becomes 318 * (1 + 6) = 1908 minutes. His cooldown is 31.8 minutes, or 31 minutes 48 seconds.
There's a typo in the bold section. My understanding is that it should be 318 * (1+5) = 1908, but I suppose the intention could be that it's 318 * (1+6) = 2226. I sincerely hope it's the first one because otherwise my understanding of this mechanic has just gone out the window.
Should be 5 not 6, fixing this. |
|
kiu Nakamura
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 10:51:20 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:kiu Nakamura wrote:Questions in regard to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/phoebe-travel-change-update/ from 30.10. 17:19 2) Fatigue in minutes As the formula enforces that fatigue below 10 minutes has no advantage to the user, it is confusing to display it as a countdown timer. You should probably substract 10 minutes from the timer by default to make it clear that this is threshold the user should wait for. 2) If we did that, the math is no longer straightforward above 10 minutes, because at 11 minutes we're displaying 1 minute but going to 66 minutes after a 5LY jump.
Makes sense. How about dimming the timer icon once it has 10m left?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
441
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 11:42:22 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yup, no part of EVE is sufficiently self-sufficient to justify nerfing JFs yet. That's a thing we'd have to change before any further JF adjustments.
In another thread you mentioned looking into the high-volume sov structures (ihubs and upgrades) to allow smaller entities a chance to move them into null-sec without requiring freighter routes through hostile space. The obvious solutions here are some combination of decreasing their volumes, and adding blueprints for items currently only seeded in empire (ihub upgrades).
Are you considering implementing these changes, and if so is there a rough time scale for when to expect them? |
LTC Vuvovich
Byrds of A Feather Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 12:01:39 -
[120] - Quote
Personally speaking, I think the whole lot of peoples at CCP have lost their ever-loving minds. It has become increasing apparent to me with each and every major upgrade, that CCP's idea of improving game play has become more and more like turning our little 'sandbox' into a box full of quicksand.
Lets forget already how LONG it takes to move around EVE as it is before the Phoebe release.... oh and YES... I wanna move my capital ships through any number of star gates packed to the gills with PVP'ers, aggros, and anyone else willing to lay in wait to blow them up.
If you read and believe everything in these DEV blogs regarding game improvements, you are liable to miss the underlying reason for most the changes that come down the pike. If you look a little deeper, beneath all the rhetoric... it may surprise you to learn that the reason most of this stuff happens is to maximize the carnage carried out in this game. My Dad always told me... if you don't understand something... just follow the money, and in this game... that money is invariably translated into the game's economy.
So it stands to reason following this train of thought, that the real purpose behind dragging us ALL through the quagmire has everything to do with reducing the current flow of building wealth in this game or to create just enough 'cause and effect' for reducing what must astronomical amounts stockpiled material goods and inventory which has been building up ever since the 'big bang theory'. As I said before... Capital ships and star gates equal complete and utter destruction for anyone silly enough to attempt it... as opposed to waiting forever to make repeated jumps from here to there. Hmm some choice eh? Seems to me we are being told to like it or lump it.
To some of you, this may all seem like wild conjecture... and maybe it is... but if it is true... then don't you think there is an easier way to achieve maximum carnage? Well of course there is and here it is. GET RID OF CLOAKING SHIPS. Think about that... oh yeah... you can run, but you cannot hide. |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5411
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 12:11:26 -
[121] - Quote
LTC Vuvovich wrote:Personally speaking, I think the whole lot of peoples at CCP have lost their ever-loving minds. It has become increasing apparent to me with each and every major upgrade, that CCP's idea of improving game play has become more and more like turning our little 'sandbox' into a box full of quicksand.
Lets forget already how LONG it takes to move around EVE as it is before the Phoebe release.... oh and YES... I wanna move my capital ships through any number of star gates packed to the gills with PVP'ers, aggros, and anyone else willing to lay in wait to blow them up.
If you read and believe everything in these DEV blogs regarding game improvements, you are liable to miss the underlying reason for most the changes that come down the pike. If you look a little deeper, beneath all the rhetoric... it may surprise you to learn that the reason most of this stuff happens is to maximize the carnage carried out in this game. My Dad always told me... if you don't understand something... just follow the money, and in this game... that money is invariably translated into the game's economy.
So it stands to reason following this train of thought, that the real purpose behind dragging us ALL through the quagmire has everything to do with reducing the current flow of building wealth in this game or to create just enough 'cause and effect' for reducing what must astronomical amounts stockpiled material goods and inventory which has been building up ever since the 'big bang theory'. As I said before... Capital ships and star gates equal complete and utter destruction for anyone silly enough to attempt it... as opposed to waiting forever to make repeated jumps from here to there. Hmm some choice eh? Seems to me we are being told to like it or lump it.
To some of you, this may all seem like wild conjecture... and maybe it is... but if it is true... then don't you think there is an easier way to achieve maximum carnage? Well of course there is and here it is. GET RID OF CLOAKING SHIPS. Think about that... oh yeah... you can run, but you cannot hide.
Wow, I didn't expect that plot twist at the end. You managed to sneak a rant about AFK cloaking into a complaint about how your poor renter's empire will have trouble getting loot from deep BFE to Jita.
Suck it up cupcake - the game needs capital travel to be nerfed.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
858
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 13:56:51 -
[122] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Soldarius wrote:Ok so specific case clarification: My alt in her Blockade Runner (90% reduction to effective jump distance fatigue) uses a Blops covert portal (50% reduction). Is the effective fatigue distance reduced by 50%, 90%, or both (50%*90% = 95% reduction)? As per the line about covert portals in the blog, the covert portal bonus multiplies with other bonuses. So, 95% reduction in that case, purely because it keeps the math clean.
Thank you for the clarification. Had a feeling that would be the case. But wanted to be sure.
"Remember remember the 4th of November!"
Phoebe. Coming soon to Eve Online.
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 16:20:18 -
[123] - Quote
What became of the alleged cap, of fatique?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
441
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:01:39 -
[124] - Quote
Fonac wrote:What became of the alleged cap, of fatique?
This is allegedly mentioned in the alleged dev blog |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:03:58 -
[125] - Quote
Edit: Nevermind, I see it now.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Alexis Nightwish
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:20:11 -
[126] - Quote
Came hoping that jump fatigue had been replaced with something that still slowed jump travel way down, but didn't punish players for using ships they'd spent months training for.
Left disappointed.
Power Projection: A Brighter Future
|
Colonel Midnight
Booze Blues n' Tattoos
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 17:34:57 -
[127] - Quote
Skills: Removed the 24 hour limit for skill training queues Frigate Construction has been renamed to Advanced Small Ship Construction Cruiser Construction has been renamed to Advanced Medium Ship Construction Battleship Construction has been renamed to Advanced Large Ship Construction Industrial Construction has been renamed to Advanced Industrial Ship Construction Reverse Engineering has been renamed to Sleeper Encryption Methods The Bomb Deployment skill now decreases the reactivation delay of Bomb Launchers by 10% per level instead of 5%.
Does this mean things will go back to what they used to be? When i could Q up 10-15 skills and train for a month without logging in at all? |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:31:21 -
[128] - Quote
It means you're in the wrong thread.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2951
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:46:51 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Nova Fox wrote:So...
1. Jump Ship 2. Clone Exits Ship 3. Fresh Clone Enters Ship 4. Jump Ship 5. Exited Clone Body Jumps Home 6. Rinse Repeat Until destination. The actual logistics of doing this for a reasonable range of target systems are sufficiently involved that we do not expect it to happen in practice. Could still turn out to be wrong, of course, but we'll see how it shakes out :) You are all taking worst case examples. Those will not be done as they are just too difficult. What can be done:
Alt takes the ship through a few gates, then a jump, then a few gates, then a jump. All of this is done in secured space. Main gets in and finishes the trip.
This increases the convenient travel distance from around 15 LY to maybe 30. Sure, it's not all the way across the map, but its much farther than CCP's intent. It greatly reduces the number of ship caches needed to project power to any part of the game.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
|
Heavy Met4l Queen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:57:59 -
[130] - Quote
So when can we expect astroglide to come to eve? We're going to need lots of it when moving titans through gates.
In the game of conquest, who cares about the pawns if the king yet reigns?
|
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:12:44 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).
How do the stats stand? Any that you can share with us? If the lot of us are wrong and drone usage is off the charts, it would be helpful to have some data to back that other than an abysmal Zkill log. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:24:05 -
[132] - Quote
Very nifty little tool! Can you change "something else" label to "capitals" so it's more obvious that's where to go for capitals? :)
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Biomass MeNOW
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 00:25:46 -
[133] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Well I'm still not sure about the high-sec caps thing but hope you guys announce it well in advance so I can invite all pilots to pop the Veldnaught before the changes are introduced.
/c
Considering how long you've been in the game and how much you've done for the playerbase CCP should create a unique skin for that dread, give it a mining bonus on 8 strip miners, and bind it to you (unsellable). |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
76
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 00:34:28 -
[134] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources). How do the stats stand? Any that you can share with us? If the lot of us are wrong and drone usage is off the charts, it would be helpful to have some data to back that other than an abysmal Zkill log.
I doubt we hear one more peep from him.. he's going to remain silent and phoebe is going to roll on out and the stuff is going to stay in place.. look at his track history.. he does this over and over again.. especially on the weekends.. nothing is changing...
its greyskull we're talking about here... I think we'd have a roll of dice that fozzie could make a change that fast.. but greyskull.. .no fawks given what so ever.. its here... NO TURNING BACK... |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
419
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 02:34:55 -
[135] - Quote
Two things I want to address:
Firstly, skills. Ignoring all the skills involved in getting into Capital hulls themselves, jump drives have 3 skills that take 4 months to train to the max. Everyone trained them to high levels despite the high modifiers because force projection was so powerful and everyone wanted to project to the max.
However, now that Jump Drives have been plunged full-force into the dirt, it's harder to justify 4 months of training for such meagre benefits. It's an extra special kick in the teeth to those who're just arriving at the end of a long train, only to see the skills nerfed.
I propose the skills have their multipliers reconsidered (don't look them up, work out what you think is right for the functionality the skills give now and then look at what they actually are). All owners should have the SP difference restored- those who've had the skill for a long time will have reaped the benefits of having it, while those who have it freshly will not be screwed out of a long train.
Point number 2. Fatigue is tuned with capital ships in mind, yet if I jump a frigate through a jump portal, I'm going to gain capital ship levels of fatigue. This seems extremely punitive.
Why not have individual hull fatigue modifiers, generally standardized by hull size, but you might want to do fun things with T2 hulls and of course keep the special values for industrial-type ships and black-ops. Generally, the hull fatigue stat should really be kept in-tune with the warp speed stat to achieve a sensible by-gate speed:by-jump speed + fatgue ratio. Jump capitals is pretty bad as it is, for each ship class as you move down, you're expending more and more fatigue that could be saved by gate travel. The whole point is to negate the effect of jumping to exceed the average 'by-gate' speed, not to nerf jump bridges into utter uselessness. |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 04:15:17 -
[136] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Two things I want to address:
Firstly, skills. Ignoring all the skills involved in getting into Capital hulls themselves, jump drives have 3 skills that take 4 months to train to the max. Everyone trained them to high levels despite the high modifiers because force projection was so powerful and everyone wanted to project to the max.
However, now that Jump Drives have been plunged full-force into the dirt, it's harder to justify 4 months of training for such meagre benefits. It's an extra special kick in the teeth to those who're just arriving at the end of a long train, only to see the skills nerfed.
I propose the skills have their multipliers reconsidered (don't look them up, work out what you think is right for the functionality the skills give now and then look at what they actually are). All owners should have the SP difference restored- those who've had the skill for a long time will have reaped the benefits of having it, while those who have it freshly will not be screwed out of a long train.
Point number 2. Fatigue is tuned with capital ships in mind, yet if I jump a frigate through a jump portal, I'm going to gain capital ship levels of fatigue. This seems extremely punitive.
Why not have individual hull fatigue modifiers, generally standardized by hull size, but you might want to do fun things with T2 hulls and of course keep the special values for industrial-type ships and black-ops. Generally, the hull fatigue stat should really be kept in-tune with the warp speed stat to achieve a sensible by-gate speed:by-jump speed + fatgue ratio. Jump capitals is pretty bad as it is, for each ship class as you move down, you're expending more and more fatigue that could be saved by gate travel. The whole point is to negate the effect of jumping to exceed the average 'by-gate' speed, not to nerf jump bridges into utter uselessness. Actually except controlled space, null will become Interceptors online, because of gatecamps. Maybe they did not want you to travel except you want to kill people. Basically this forces all of null into Renter-like life. Except wars ofc. There will be a lot of fun, in the first month. Then? Some say null needed this capship nerf. To be "dynamic". Nope. It only needs the ability to lock. But mentioning this is some kind of Blasphemy, it seems. You must be blind, slow and defenseless. Fatigued too. It is "dynamic" to play like this.
|
Beaute Suprenate
G String Enterprises Gentlemen's.Club
13
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 04:27:49 -
[137] - Quote
Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed. |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 04:41:17 -
[138] - Quote
Beaute Suprenate wrote:Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed. Voice of reason.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 05:52:51 -
[139] - Quote
Beaute Suprenate wrote:Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed.
its bullcrap to have dudes hot drop super's on a friggin miner or a single ratter.. that's why it needed to be shut down.. blame the dudes that did it.. go look at killboards and you'll see the group who's known for it.
2nd part of your comment.. yeah I agree.. so they won.. guess that means no longer supplying ccp with money.. I think we all need to just go after newbies and push them away from the game.. that's a bright idea isn't it?? lol.. you folks act like your plex is funding the game entirely... oh wait.. never mind (shots self in the face) |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
163
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 06:25:16 -
[140] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Beaute Suprenate wrote:Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed. its bullcrap to have dudes hot drop super's on a friggin miner or a single ratter.. that's why it needed to be shut down.. blame the dudes that did it.. go look at killboards and you'll see the group who's known for it. ...and you think making Null a cage will resolve this? EVERYONE wants to take advantage of toys, no matter how l33t they want to pose, and with minimum risk. You simply cannot solve this. As i said: all what this game needed is the ability to lock. ....errr, wait. Force people to fight? Blasphemous...
|
|
Beaute Suprenate
G String Enterprises Gentlemen's.Club
14
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 07:39:04 -
[141] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Beaute Suprenate wrote:Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed. its bullcrap to have dudes hot drop super's on a friggin miner or a single ratter.. that's why it needed to be shut down.. blame the dudes that did it.. go look at killboards and you'll see the group who's known for it. ...and you think making Null a cage will resolve this? EVERYONE wants to take advantage of toys, no matter how l33t they want to pose, and with minimum risk. You simply cannot solve this. As i said: all what this game needed is the ability to lock. ....errr, wait. Force people to fight? Blasphemous...
There was nothing to resolve. The big alliances just get to keep all their sov. No more big wars, no more Cap Replacement Funding. Now they will just eat a little at the edges taking away the sov of ALL the little guys until there are three or four left. |
Nevayuh
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 10:10:27 -
[142] - Quote
Welcome to 'Blue Doughnut' land guys.
As we have seen in the past couple of weeks all the large Alliances have set about the predicted re-positioning exercise leaving large areas of EVE unclaimed and unwanted by anyone but a few ratters, Way to go CCP.
Not the slightest bit bothered by the force projection nerf, long overdue, But think back, it only became possible because of CCP's crappy mechanics in the first place so in the 'VIEW OF MOST' note the lack of Alliance or Corporation attachment there. reducing the capabilities of Capital Combat ships to move easily around EVE is a good thing, lot of pissed off players mind you who now find that months of training is for nothing.
Rorquals, WTF are you guys smoking, apart from a few players that use them in ways they were never designed for, again CCP's crappy foresight, it makes no difference if they have 20% or a 1000% Drone bonus, Combat is not an option, bought for mining operations they spend almost 100% of there time in a PoS and rarely move if ever and those that do for PoS installations have little or no need for any Drone bonus, hostiles in system, they wait them out or get fleet coverage for the duration, What hurts here is the very idea that anyone would want to use this ship in Combat at all or even put it at risk.
Logistics ships, = Jump Freighters, Sorry CCP, if you believe that anyone is going to start moving these via gates just because you think it's a good idea to allow the chance of some desperate PvP player to get at them you really don't have much of a grasp on how risk averse these pilots really are, the results of this Nerf are not going to be what you expect, Players will of course adjust, right up until the point they realize how much of a problem this is going to be then simply stop using them, or rather stop using those accounts, we have guys already selling them now while they can still move them out.
Nerfing logistics transport in anyway flies directly in the face of your stated aims of expanding Null Sec usage, logistics is what makes it possible, logistics is what makes it practical, take that away and you will not get what you either want or expect. |
kiu Nakamura
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 10:36:15 -
[143] - Quote
Greygal wrote:Very nifty little tool! Can you change "something else" label to "capitals" so it's more obvious that's where to go for capitals? :)
I get your point, but its difficult. "Capitals" would include industrial capitals which would be wrong in this case, and also sub-capitals are matched by this option (getting bridged or using a jumpbridge). Suggestions? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 19:08:22 -
[144] - Quote
Greyscale- not that you're actually still looking at this, but consider the below:
What is the point of a 5ly max range on a rorq (4 minute wait between jumps) yet a cyno lasts for 10 minutes? That means unless the rorq has multiple cyno pilots every 5 ly, the rorq is still going to have to sit and wait at least 10 minutes to move- which would be roughly the same if it had a 10ly max range. This combination is very poorly thought out and will only hurt and frustrate the playerbase that use Rorqs. Especially considering you're keeping a hardly used feature on the Rorq in the place of the feature that most Rorq users want. |
Findell Ronuken
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 21:16:53 -
[145] - Quote
Yes clearly this game needs to make travel take longer, to make sov even more worthless and to devalue skill points earned by players all great things for the future of this game.
I hope this change ruins capitals so everyone will quit this stupid ******* game. |
JetCord
Abyssal Heavy Industries
49
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 01:43:51 -
[146] - Quote
Welcome to Generic OnlineTMsoon - where all the ships classes jump range is the same no matter the size.
i dont mind limiting the titan and supercarrier jump range but making all of them uniform ? |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 06:32:34 -
[147] - Quote
Beaute Suprenate wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Beaute Suprenate wrote:Two things to state... First, this will sell more account and generate more CCP income. If you station a cap pilot at the end of each jump, like a cyno alt, you jump on without penalty. Hard to do but makes sense. Most of the old players are fully cap trained. So CCP fixes it so they all need more cap pilots. If you need more cyno pilots, you need more alts, and thus more accounts. Voila, more income for CCP.
Second, who was complaining about the force projection? The people with all sov. Who's on the council? The people with the most votes, the biggest Alliances. And what did they get? Exactly what they want. A frozen sov. What they have now, they will have forever. This is the day that all big sov freezes. Goons keep what they have, NA keeps what they have, NC keeps what they have, etc. Localized fights over the scraps that are left. No big movement, no big battles, no server TIDI, CCP doesn't have to worry about 2000 users in one system with 100k drones. No more investment in more powerful servers. The major players got exactly what they wanted.
And the sandbox got nerfed. its bullcrap to have dudes hot drop super's on a friggin miner or a single ratter.. that's why it needed to be shut down.. blame the dudes that did it.. go look at killboards and you'll see the group who's known for it. ...and you think making Null a cage will resolve this? EVERYONE wants to take advantage of toys, no matter how l33t they want to pose, and with minimum risk. You simply cannot solve this. As i said: all what this game needed is the ability to lock. ....errr, wait. Force people to fight? Blasphemous... There was nothing to resolve. The big alliances just get to keep all their sov. No more big wars, no more Cap Replacement Funding. Now they will just eat a little at the edges taking away the sov of ALL the little guys until there are three or four left. If there was nothing to resolve. Why all this?
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
90
|
Posted - 2014.11.02 19:19:08 -
[148] - Quote
LOL!! Everyone using their cap ships before the nerf hits..... |
Momma Yeti
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 23:29:45 -
[149] - Quote
And CCP wonders why new players trying out EVE for the first time shy away from this game....
*sigh*
|
Vasili Zaitsez
Eldorado Exhumers
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 00:49:12 -
[150] - Quote
With less than a year into this game I may be bringing a novice if not novel viewpoint. I just skilled into the Rorq with one of my toons and have a fair way to go to the now coveted JDC Level 5 skill.
I did not see this mentioned earlier in the thread. It seems to me if you Nerf the benefit of a skill you should also Nerf the requirements to get that skill. In this case the time it takes to get the skill should be nerfed commensurate to the amount of benefit lost.
Before you veterans say "Hey wait a minute, why should the new guy get it easier?" Those whom have achieved any JDC skill levels would rightfully be due an SP refund to be used wherever they wish if any reduction in skill time is actually made.
You may say "We did not really nerf the JF" Ok, reduce the skill time proportional to the total loss of jump range benefit across all capitals then.
Omniblivion seems to be the most vocal about the Rorq changes he and others make what seem to be salient points about the jump range change. Most of them seem to favor loosing Drones in favor of keeping range. This takes the previously mentioned "Battle Rorqual" off the table.
Loosing the Drones in favor of range makes the most sense to me as well. Its primary role seems to me to be an Industrial Boosting, Processing and Transport platform.
If stimulating Null activity improving the Null Sec economy is part of the goal of Phoebe, Nerfing JDC and Jump range on the Rorq seems counterproductive. Since the design of EvE has ore presence determined in part by system security level there will continue to be a need to transport ore and minerals across significant ranges. It seems to be part of the larger economy. Trading what I have over here for what you have over there. Maybe I missed something here, but wasn't the Rorqual designed not only to boost, gather, compress and transport ore but to be able to move the entire mining operation in one swift move as well?
I am hoping to use my future Rorq to actually run mining operations with, not to wind up serving it up as a 2.5 Billion isk kill mail to a gate camp. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23725
|
Posted - 2014.11.04 20:23:25 -
[151] - Quote
Hello viking spacelords
I'm setting home station for my medical clones, and across several characters with the same grade clone and numer of jump clones, the install fee ranged from 100,000 ISK to 6,500 ISK to 3,500 ISK. I could not find clarification on this new (?) smart med clone fee formula.
also the interface only let me cancel the first four or five tries ("Change Station" button) before finally populating.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Miss Doggy
X-Prot Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 00:02:14 -
[152] - Quote
another boost for Black opps and rest nerfed. good bye eve. 5 accounts disabled. see you in a year time. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23784
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 02:09:19 -
[153] - Quote
Hey, i heard there was fatigue from wormhole jumps just after patch?
could it be that you took my advice about turning cynos into wormholes back when fozzie was talking about hiding incoming sigs...
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.11.07 19:11:42 -
[154] - Quote
fatigue for JB is a headshot for reshipping, reach fleet for a later login, come back in staging for logoff ... i a hedshot for every casual player and not hardcore player...
|
Vexed Angel
Manson Family Advent of Fate
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 07:04:01 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit. Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit. In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Ya really screwed the pooch on the Rorqual, a.k.a. "poor mans JF"!!!
Heck, I don't even care if you take the Drone Bay away from the Rorqual. You rarely see them in belts, Ice anoms, and I can't say that I've EVER seen a "Battle Rorqual" killmail.
I use mine to fuel pos's, compress ice and ore, store mining ships and haulers. However, now the Rorqual is "USELESS" with a jump range of only 5 ly, now relegated to our home system providing mining bonuses and compressing ore and ice.
A while back there was discussion of changing mining bonuses to be the same as combat bonuses and make the Rorqual be outside of the pos to provide the bonuses. Do this and you will seal the fate of the Rorqual and I'll reprocess mine and build non-capital ships out of its remains!!!
This is an appeal to make logistics the main job of the Rorqual, a viable option to move goods into and out of null sec with the Jump Freighters. Do the right thing extend their jump range, reduce their jump fatigue, severely restrict the Rorqual drone bay, remove the Rorquals ability to fit combat mods and fleet combat boosters. Make the Rorqual Jump range and fatigue the same as a Jump Freighter and insure that the Rorqual and Jump Freighters have "AMPLE" jump range to keep them and null sec a "viable" place in which to live and serve. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3652
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 14:01:28 -
[156] - Quote
Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1409
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 14:10:45 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
What?
So you nerf the Rorqual jump range, you give his unique compression ability to POS modules, and now that this ship is left nearly-useless, you tell me that there are no short-term plans to bring it back to life?
Really dissapointed
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1424
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 14:19:33 -
[158] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
... and this is why you should have just given it the range and fatigue bonus at the start. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
310
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 14:58:31 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
This is all you need it to do to make it a somewhat better ship:
Quote:Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
- -5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
- 10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode
- 50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level.
20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.- 50% Bonus per level to Mining drone Yield when in deployed mode.
Role Bonuses: - 900% bonus to the range of survey scanners
- 200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners
- 100% Bonus to Mining drone velocity
Can fit Clone Vat Bay Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously 5 LY Base jump range (10 LY)
Quote:Industrial Mode:
- Reduce to 30 or 60 second cycles.
- Potentially give it a resistance bonus to the ship's shield (15-20%?)
With all level 5 and 3 mining drone rigs (2 Tech II), you would yield about 1500/minute, about a hulk with T1 strips and boosts. it would suffer due to the drones having to travel, thus not actually equaling a hulk in practice.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 16:16:50 -
[160] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
Thank you for looking into it.
However.
I don't think anyone was ever advocating that the Rorqual is/was or should be used as a PVP ship.
We were advocating that the Rorqual is the best ship for doing anything to do with POS fuelling/dropping/tearing down. In some cases these things are done in potentially hostile environments, which is why a ship with a full slot layout is better than a JF. Doing this now has become a bigger pain in the ass due to the reduced range, which your reasoning for reducing to 5ly not 10 like JF's, was the drone bonus.
The folks who WANT to have a rorqual in a belt were the ones advocating keeping the drone bonus. On the condition that other steps be taken to make it more viable in the belt.
I'm curious what metrics you looked at. Because to me the big question is, what percentage of Rorquals out there have mining links or compression modules fitted? I can tell you my highs are neuts, smarbombs and a cyno, all of which I hopefully don't have to use and I've also never used the ship in any sort of mining support role.
So what you are left with is one group who uses the ship for mining support, largely hiding within a POS and another group who uses them as an alternative to a JF for hauling or hauling in situations where a JF is an unnecessary risk.
The group who keeps their rorquals hiding in a pos, want to keep the drone bonus, even though they spend all their time in a POS. The group that does hauling, who are arguably at more risk, say screw the drone bonus we would rather have the range and we realistically are not going to be in combat anyways, otherwise something has gone wrong and what we really will be doing is trying to escape.
While I think most people understand limited resources, the justification of reduced jump range in favour of a drone bonus that nobody actually uses and won't use without other significant changes, doesn't make any sense. |
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
152
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 16:44:56 -
[161] - Quote
Also disable mining links inside force fields, there's no excuse for allowing fleet boosting from perfect safety. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
752
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 17:24:16 -
[162] - Quote
If only someone had looked at zkillboard and seen how many rorqual killmails there were. |
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
425
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 17:30:52 -
[163] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now. Wow, just wow.
Quote:the ship's clearly in a wonky state Understatement of the year. I would say broken beyond all repair, not that it was ever in a particularly good place. Should I bother asking for the skill points to Capital Industrial Ships V back on my alt?
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
310
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 18:39:56 -
[164] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:If only someone had looked at zkillboard and seen how many rorqual killmails there were.
Rorqual: https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/kills/
Ore Dev edition: https://zkillboard.com/ship/33687/kills/ |
Telistra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.17 23:41:48 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
Ok, I am sorry but I have to ask this question...
...How is it people with access to Google could see this (And the droves of people on the forums telling you) and you didn't? |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
233
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 01:08:56 -
[166] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now. This is all you need it to do to make it a somewhat better ship: Quote:Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
- -5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
- 10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode
- 50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level.
20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level.- 50% Bonus per level to Mining drone Yield when in deployed mode.
Role Bonuses: - 900% bonus to the range of survey scanners
- 200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners
- 100% Bonus to Mining drone velocity
Can fit Clone Vat Bay Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously 5 LY Base jump range (10 LY) Quote:Industrial Mode:
- Reduce to 30 or 60 second cycles.
- Potentially give it a resistance bonus to the ship's shield (15-20%?)
With all level 5 and 3 mining drone rigs (2 Tech II), you would yield about 1500/minute, about a hulk with T1 strips and boosts. it would suffer due to the drones having to travel, thus not actually equaling a hulk in practice. No. No, no, no. It's simpler than that.
Remove the drone bonus, add the fatigue bonus, add the 5 LY base jump range, and change "10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level when in deployed mode" to "10% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman warfare links per level".
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25202
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 01:30:54 -
[167] - Quote
if only there was a group of people with the relevant experience to consult for suggestions
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Rim Worlds Protectorate
173
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 05:51:00 -
[168] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now. What? So you nerf the Rorqual jump range, you give his unique compression ability to POS modules, and now that this ship is left nearly-useless, you tell me that there are no short-term plans to bring it back to life? Really sad Thanks for the update anyway. Edit: I'm aware that giving him something amazing like a forcefield generator or something would be a huge time-sink, but surely there could have been plans to buff it somehow. Make it viable in some area.
TY CCP for having me waste Skill points training into Compression to give it to any new player with a POS now.. who doesn't need standings to drop one.. thank you CCP for making it to risky of an item to have in a belt so its cheaper to run an ORCA in a POS with a Compression array.. with slightly less boosts... Again wasted SP... TY for Nerfing it's jump range so I can't move mining fleets around systems quickly anymore either.... TY CCP... TY for also stating that once again you want Nullsec to have Sustainability but have no Clue how to get it's industry capitals working... but hi-sec Gets a niche Battleship hauler Tug.... \o/ You want Null-sec to have this sustainability so show us your plans on how our capitals will actually be worth having trained into. So far I see these days an Orca is cheaper paired with a POS... why waste Two fuels.. Heavy Water + POS fuel For a few extra % in Boosts.. with a Rorqual.. when I can save so much isk just using a Orca paired with a POS... Hell its even quicker and cheaper to warp to belts if I felt ballsy with it. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
1268
|
Posted - 2014.11.18 07:42:47 -
[169] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
I'd say I'm shocked, but with the track record, I'm not. I'd say I'm upset, but again, this isn't a big surprise.
The only taste this leaves in my mouth is one of disappointment, like a child who's father goes to the pub every week, but never has the time to come watch his band play at school, after repeatedly promising he's going to make it.
Perhaps we are appealing to the wrong people, when we ask for ships to be reworked, instead of de-throned, de-fanged, and forgotten. I mean, of all things, there was development resources to create an ORE Freighter, that doesn't actually have anything to do with industry, but the capital of the ORE fleet, the shining star of the lineup, gets to remain in the corner with a bag over it's head?
/melodrama over, guess I'll check back in a year for updates. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 18:24:19 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
Greyscale. Seriously. You just nerfed the jump range from 10ly to 5ly, admitted that substantially more use is not related to combat, and then tell us "we don't have balance bandwidth to look at it right now". There might be two people in all of eve that are upset that the drone bonus goes away for the jump range, right now, which is something that you can immediately do. Or if you're worried about the removal of drone bonus, just fix the range and don't touch drone bonuses.
Or, better yet, look at the features and ideas forum every once in a while to see some good ideas on How To Fix The RorqLOL.
You want to centralize production in nullsec? This is a good step in that direction.
Next, re balancing ore anoms. |
|
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
185
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:00:18 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
GJ @ ruining skillplan and sub time of a lot of player! like always? I try to keep for me all the good things i think about you but one day it will go out
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
Telistra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 00:13:43 -
[172] - Quote
DAFUQ... |
OldWolf69
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 10:16:50 -
[173] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now. Must admit you are somehow a good Troll, sir. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
206
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:14:26 -
[174] - Quote
I will never understand the game design decisions that CCP makes. I am trying really hard to have faith in CCP, but it is amiss after years of repetitive, ******, decisions.
1) Nerf Rorquals to be even more kneecapped 2) Spend lots of resources designing a new very narrow use ship for high sec only (seriously what is this ship for) 3) Say that there is not enough bandwidth to revisit the Rorqual at all, despite announcing the need to change the ship nearly a year ago.
The solution to get to CCP's own goal is pretty simple, yet CCP can't see it.
-Centralized production in null requires reliable sources of basic raw materials (ORE). Ore anomalies in null have a horrible distribution of minerals. Rebalance ore anomalies.
-Rorquals are too worthless to actively use outside of a POS/POS Logistics. Fix the rorqual with any meaningful changes (example being the suggestions I linked above), both encouraging additional mining and combat opportunities in null.
-Revisit the changes to jump bridges to enable casual use without allowing groups to travel multiple regions. Example: increasing fuel cost by a very large percentage, making it literally impossible for a full fleet to use jump bridges without serious logistics.
-Once the above changes are made, nerf jump freighter range. This will raise the cost of imports/exports and stimulate local industry in null. This also provides even more choke points for people to control. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1381
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 17:53:36 -
[175] - Quote
November 17th:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
November 27th:
CCP Rise: WeGÇÖre definitely looking at the Rorqual. Right now the Rorqual is a giant paperweight and weGÇÖre looking at reworking it so that it becomes something more useful, that people will want to put into belts alongside their mining fleets. Source
So... not being looked at, but now being looked at. Why you guys gotta play with my heart, CCP?
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 09:30:54 -
[176] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:-Revisit the changes to jump bridges to enable casual use without allowing groups to travel multiple regions. Example: increasing fuel cost by a very large percentage, making it literally impossible for a full fleet to use jump bridges without serious logistics. I was thinking the only thing you might need to do is to limit the pilots to JBs erected by their own alliance. Now, that might turn into a lot of eye of terrors, but that'll still turn into a lot of hassle for everyone involved since they'd have to split their fleets up into a per-alliance fleet, which would split up to take JBs in different system from eachother, only to merge at the end.
I like to think that'll be too much hassle to do, but knowing how poopsocky eveplayers are, chances are they would indeed do this exact thing. But that does beg the question, why not just travel normally while staggering how many went through a gate at a time, thus reducing the hideous tidi, and be safer. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
338
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 03:07:46 -
[177] - Quote
There are only three things you have to do to make the Rorqual a worthwhile ship. - Give it the same jump range as jump freighters. - Remove its drones and drone bonus. - Change its mining foreman link bonus to one that is always active on the ship, instead of only while the industrial core is active.
This is not hard. This is something you could do in minutes. And it's something that you know needs to happen.
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Bogdo Lama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:23:32 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Logibro wrote: We nerfed eve logistics because moving stuff is bad for eve!
I realize im bit late with this as rhea is allready knocking on the door. But i havent played too much lately due work stuff and havent used capitals for while. However let me still state my opinion about this past logistic nerf patch. Why it was needed to nerf ability to move ships and modules from system A to system B? Lets take example here. If id wanted to move in null past phoebe it would take me 11 carrier jumps to get to location where it used to take 3 carrier jumps pre phoebe. Also i would need to do atleast 5 carrier jumps trough hostile null which im not doing. Not to mention i would have to do atleast 3 there and back trips because i have alot modules and ships to move. Thats 33 carrier jumps instead of 9 jumps. And i havent even yet talked about fatigue. So it simply means forget null and stay in lowsec and do not use capitals anymore.
What can i say makes me wanna unsub. Because im bored in lowsec, cant move to null cause its made impossible. Maybe i should just join CODE. and go gank some miners in hisec? |
Terminator 2
Infinity Agenda
41
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:59:52 -
[179] - Quote
Bogdo Lama wrote:CCP Logibro wrote: We nerfed logistics because moving stuff is bad for eve!
I realize im bit late with this as rhea is allready knocking on the door. But i havent played too much lately due work stuff and havent used capitals for while. However let me still state my opinion about this past logistic nerf patch. Why it was needed to nerf ability to move ships and modules from system A to system B? Lets take example here. If id wanted to move in null past phoebe it would take me 11 carrier jumps to get to location where it used to take 3 carrier jumps pre phoebe. Also i would need to do atleast 5 carrier jumps trough hostile null which im not doing. Not to mention i would have to do atleast 3 there and back trips because i have alot modules and ships to move. Thats 33 carrier jumps instead of 9 jumps. And i havent even yet talked about fatigue. So it simply means forget null and stay in lowsec and do not use capitals anymore. What can i say makes me wanna unsub. Because im bored in lowsec, cant move to null cause its made impossible. Even relocating to another lowsec system is nighmare nowdays. Not much left for me to do...
I guess thats why Jumpfreighters and Rorquals received a boost if i'm not mistaken.
For anything else: there is something called teamplay...not you need to move thing from A to B, but your Alliance. |
Bogdo Lama
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:58:45 -
[180] - Quote
Terminator 2 wrote:Bogdo Lama wrote:CCP Logibro wrote: We nerfed logistics because moving stuff is bad for eve!
I realize im bit late with this as rhea is allready knocking on the door. But i havent played too much lately due work stuff and havent used capitals for while. However let me still state my opinion about this past logistic nerf patch. Why it was needed to nerf ability to move ships and modules from system A to system B? Lets take example here. If id wanted to move in null past phoebe it would take me 11 carrier jumps to get to location where it used to take 3 carrier jumps pre phoebe. Also i would need to do atleast 5 carrier jumps trough hostile null which im not doing. Not to mention i would have to do atleast 3 there and back trips because i have alot modules and ships to move. Thats 33 carrier jumps instead of 9 jumps. And i havent even yet talked about fatigue. So it simply means forget null and stay in lowsec and do not use capitals anymore. What can i say makes me wanna unsub. Because im bored in lowsec, cant move to null cause its made impossible. Even relocating to another lowsec system is nighmare nowdays. Not much left for me to do... I guess thats why Jumpfreighters and Rorquals received a boost if i'm not mistaken. For anything else: there is something called teamplay...not you need to move thing from A to B, but your Alliance.
"Rorqual base jump range reduced from 3.5LY to 2.5LY, for a new maximum range of 5LY with skills."
Thats same range than carrier has. Yes jump freighters. Not intrested buying or training one cause reasons. To be more exact i got 8 billion reasons to not buy one just so i can enjoy destroying alot T2 rigs in different sizes. Yeas you can do courier but still.. Also not going to hand over tens of billions worth of stuff to "some guy" so he can move it for me. Thats not teamplay imho. Thats something else with alot trust involved init.
Anyway was just stating my opinion about phoebe. Thanks for input.. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |