I suppose your idea of "more" interaction is telling your fleet mates to warp, instead of doing it for them?

I suppose your idea of "more" interaction is telling your fleet mates to warp, instead of doing it for them?

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.

the 'big' problem...I see no one is pushing for the anchoring abilities orbit/KaR to go though) and everything else takes the hit along the way.

As folks are keen to point out - warping fleet to a player is easy and basically what happens today in bigger fights

Continue skirting the question

they are creating an extra step/extra time for fleets to get on there targets that's completely unneccessary.

Currently the FC probes out the target in their ship and warps the fleet.

In future the FC gets someone else to probe out the target and then warps the fleet to the prober.

That's more interaction not less.

And this was exactly the one, "extra" interaction I pointed out. The fact is this "extra" interaction can be done now. So this does nothing, additionally, in the future there is literally no reason for the fc not to do this, because once said warp in is on grid you can warp it off and ignore for the duration of fleet fight (read alt of fc.)

It is a lot harder to be running two clients then running one ship.

If you say so, considering you literally only need to look at one at a time. Not to mention this precise thing is already done quite frequently, by solo pilots, in small gangs, etc. These people seem to get by just fine, dual boxing a prober and a main, it's certainly not rocket science.

So other than allowing a single fleet member to do nothing but fly a probe ship, warp to a target and wait for everyone else to show up, can you come up with any other reasons why this can be considered a "positive" change; one that betters Eve as a whole, instead of creating an unnecessary extra step and removing (in-system) ease of fleet movements for everyone.

Yeah... another CCP nerv against the player will.

+1 for Another nice idear you did because off why not ? BALLS OF STEEL and so
-1000 Becuase every Member in EvE is in need of those BOOKMARKS and srsly why the hell Nerv Missions warpins ????




ps: sry for bad english german and so and even the german isnt perfekt \o/

What question? What does it fix? You're the one claiming something is broken. I think the CHANGE is a change to the ease with which a fleet can precisely assault a target.

But, that would sure be some science-*******-fiction, my friend.

That is the answer to your question and you are right. It is COMPLETELY unnecessary. So is blowing other people up.
To answer your next question: Giving the dude who is about to get dropped on time to observe, orient, decide, and (re)act makes EVE into a game, rather than it being a deterministic process of comparison between two forces. If that dude has time, he might still run away from you, but he might also do what good boxers sometimes do when they are fighting an aggressive opponent: take a deep breath and a long step back and then lay into you, and maybe CCP thinks that kind of gameplay is . . . better.

Edit: and in reply to you Baltec1, I'm no so foolish to think that they do not have other changes down the pipe as well (they've eluded to as much in this thread already.) This one change though is completely ridiculous, and not one person can give any real reason, any GOOD reason for this change to happen. On the other hand there's 60+ pages of arguments as to why this shouldn't happen. So no, CCP aren't doing the smart thing here - the smart thing would be to say: Ok here's our "roadmap" for fleet changes (they seem to like roadmaps for other game changes.) So IF there is any real good reason why this change should happen in the first place, perhaps those of us who don't work at CCP and aren't limited by NDA can be let it in on the big secret thing that this change is presumably intended to help/hinder.

I give this proposal a -1.

I see it ******* off the AFK multi-account miners further which is a good thing probably. I didn't actually watch the o7 broadcast but can you tell us what this proposal is actually trying to fix Also if you don't like people fleeting up why don't you just remove that part of the game along with all the leadership skills etc

I does appear that current problems such as the need to iterate sentry drones and now this derive from PvP elements of the game mainly. Is there a way to fix problems within PvP without destroying the remaining parts of the game.

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


They like people forming fleets, they do not like the FC doing just about everything in the fleet.

We have 60+ pages of people decrying the end of the world is upon us because they now need a scout rather than relying upon the FC to do all the work. Its hardly a convincing argument from your side.

No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.

Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.

Q: CCP, why you do this?
A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.


They like people forming fleets, they do not like the FC doing just about everything in the fleet.

For every person claiming this is a negative change there is also a person who then benefits from this change. . . by proxy

Yeah but fixing something but destroying everything else ehm where did i saw this once ohhh wait here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ9Xk0Lln5Y

No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.

Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.

Hey guess what else, this guy already has the tools to see probes on scan, and make a decision as to what he wants to do, flee or fight.

Arguing that blowing other people up is unnecessary in a game where a very large part of it, is about exactly that, is ridiculous. It is entirely necessary, in many situations. Particularly among the group that seems so vocal in this thread that this is supposedly a "positive" change. If the null blocs had no need to blow people up, there would be no need for fleets, fleet warp, thousands of alliance members, coalitions, or any of that. We'd have an extraordinarily stale game on our hands, or rather it would be an entirely different game.

Except that people who like this change aren't complaining here.

No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.

Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.

well, one of my corpmates suggested a slightly different solution:

Allow FleetWarps as they are now, but:

- add a delay for executing the command. Lets say 15 Seconds in which all fleet members get a "synchronizing warp drives" Message. They can still cancel the warp during this time and warp manually to be faster on their target.

- synchronizing warp drives then also means, all the fleet is warping with the same speed of the slowest ship in fleet. So if you use FleetWarps, even your Frigs and HACs will be slow as Battleships if you also have Battleships moving with your fleet.

This way the FC still had "full control" if he prefers to have it, but at the penalty of movement speed

But groups with a higher level of organization could use individual warping to their advantage and skip delays and slowdowns if their members are warping themselves or by squads of different warpspeeds. They will land a lot faster on the target and can tackle... but they also have to hold on their own until the rest of the fleet arrives.

Options, Choices... Benefits, Drawbacks... looks like some kind of strategic value for me.