http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3a8pss/recording_of_ccp_fleet_warp_meeting_with_wormhole/

This discussion(linked) makes a few things very clear to me:

• The currently proposed removal of game functionality seems destined to occur.
• There will be future changes to the game intended to remove additional functionality from the game for some reason.
• The end result product will not in any way resemble the EVE game that I currently enjoy playing.

I don't know why I'm surprised at all, when CCP messed with the spawn distances to wormholes and the majority response was "do not want" they did it anyway. Why would 80 pages of mostly negative feedback from their customers alter their plans now? I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that they refuse to even compromise when confronted with such voluminous opposition. This situation applied to real business would be something like a major car manufacturer issuing a mandatory recall where they disable all cruise control because that feature causes people to use their cars in a way the manufacturer doesn't like.

Could I adapt? Yes, I suppose I could find a way to have content in this new game, but what it boils down to for me is this: I do not like the game CCP is changing EVE to be and I don't want to.

Somehow I don't think subscription income works the way people think.

This type of change is bold, and it might seem to mean fewer vet subs, and then EVE will die. But consider the possibility that most of EVE's subscription / real money income is from baddies buying PLEX.

So the income reality might actually be the opposite of what you think--less pressure on PLEX means lower ISK value on market, which means baddies will buy more PLEX to have the same amount of ISK, assuming their ISK spending stays the same.

It's a nice thought that EVE is being revamped for the sake of pure gameplay, subscriptions be damned... but that's unrealistic.

Meh. According to the lore, your ship's gravity capacitor (not computer) has to lock onto a gravity signal into order to warp to it. So in theory, random bookmarks shouldn't work. Nor should warping to most/all sub-caps work. Nor should any target smaller than a "cluster of asteroids..."

If CCP can completely ignore their lore, then appealing to logic is probably a sub-optimal debate tactic as well.

edit: Gravity capacitor, not computer, decides where you warp.

And as of 80 pages "negative" feedback, I see mostly alts and minor scrubs like myself posting against it except I am not against it, I am in favor still does not change that I am a minor scrub none the less while the guys from the major alliance and a lot of vets who actually still know how things used to be a couple of years back are very much in favor of the change.

[quote=Rekatan]
Also, could we get some sort of dev blog about this? Because both of the round tables weren't very informative. Sorry CCP Larrikin, but you didn't exactly give players an intended goal for this change and what it would fix.

CSM members are still talking to CCP about this.

Some of us are still, here, listening and taking reasonable concerns and suggestions.

m

To be fair, Jump Fatigue is huge pain in the ass but it didn't prevent you from jumping to some locations all together. Hell, it (jump fatigue) even had some benefit in reducing the effective range of large cap fleets, letting smaller groups use their capitals. This change has very little to no estimated benefit.

If you think it is important to you but you do not even have the balls to post with your mains what does that show the world?
Since I am in favor I can happily hide behind an alt without being an hypocrite. Since 80 pages of alts refused to show even that much of sincerity why should CCP care?

Independents won't know any different, I think it will miss them for the most part.

Players who understand what's going on in space around them should like the removal of piloting automation. I hope drone assist is next to go. Yes, completely.

They do play the game, just not on their old accounts.

Doesn't matter what you think, fact is they do play EVE. The other fact is that the CSM support this change too.

They aren't removing orbit, approach and the like any time soon. This is another example of CCP saying something and people going off the deep end thinking they said something else. The only change happening is the fleet warp nerf as specified in the OP, nothing more. This change simply means you need to use dedicated scouts like we used to, nothing more. All of this talk of having to stagger warps in mixed fleets is nonsense. As is the view this is aimed only at bombers, CCP gave bombers as just one example of a fleet that would need to alter its tactics a bit.

They aren't removing orbit, approach and the like any time soon. This is another example of CCP saying something and people going off the deep end thinking they said something else. The only change happening is the fleet warp nerf as specified in the OP, nothing more. This change simply means you need to use dedicated scouts like we used to, nothing more. All of this talk of having to stagger warps in mixed fleets is nonsense. As is the view this is aimed only at bombers, CCP gave bombers as just one example of a fleet that would need to alter its tactics a bit.

I've said the same thing in the past. When gameplay is this deep, you begin to lose touch as a developer. At the same time it's odd that EVE has managed to iterate on itself so little.

Larrikin only went from player to developer a few months ago

I doubt he has lost much insight

This is a small change.

While I commented on the hilarity of the intended effect vs the real effect, I must say this change is minor, and part of some bells and whistles that there was a time we never had. When things are too easy it just isn't fun, and dropping an armada right on top of someone at will is probably a bit too easy.

Thats not what this change is.

This thread is just about this one change when those other changes come, if they ever do, we can kick up a stink about them then. Right now there are no plans to get rid of orbit as they have nothing to replace it.

And yet, absolutely nobody in the discussion is actually saying 'EVE is a better game when it is difficult'. The proposed changes don't reduce 'difficulty' at all - nor, for that matter, do they improve 'clarity'.

This is a great example of that well reasoned argument. The concepts are explained, there isn't any needless flamebait, and an alternative is presented.

At first I was on the fence about these changes but seeing how many whiny baby elite pvpers that are so fond of these changes I say bring on more changes.

Remember kids, its adapt or die.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't want ass prints on the new door!

Experience is compelling isn't it, but institutional processes in a large alliance such as yours inevitably lead their members into passivity, reward risk averse behaviour and punish non-conformance. If you expect creativity or initiative you won't find it, the culture abhors it. You'd be much more likely to find anger at the suggestion that 'they' take a lead, after all mixed messages are intensely frustrating. Your membership will prefer to make heroes of their fc to explain their complacency, and the FCs just want them to hit F1, like Henry Ford put it "Why is it that every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?"

Considering I was making a comment and not an argument. You should maybe keep your insight to yourself until you can tell the difference between the two?!

Remember no ass prints on my door!

It does exactly what they want, It stops the fc from being the scout in their fc ship. All this change does is return us to what we used to do back in 2007 and we got just as many fights then as today.

This show what exactly with regards to the way fleets worked back then?

After feedback and discussion, weGÇÖve done some magic on our code and now a wider range of objects will be broadcastable as a Warp-To:

Mission locations
Bookmarks (newly created bookmarks will have a delay before being broadcastable)
Fleet members
Along with all existing broadcastable items