Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 14:15:56 -
[121] - Quote
Fatigue is a necessary mechanic in my opinion, however its nowhere perfect right now.
Obviously giving all ships the same fatigue amount is somewhat off, and punishes a lot of specially younger people who do not understand the mechanic. However, i would not remove Fatigue completely from Subcaps, as otherwise it would be abused again. For an organized entity it would be pretty easy to build up a "Titan Highway" through Lowsec / NPC Nullsec to project Subcaps fleets virtually everywhere.
So i would suggest to somehow tie the Fatigue generated to the Mass of the ship, much like Wormholes.
In addition to that, Jump Bridges should generate a LOT LESS Fatigue. The routes of JBs are fixed and they are basicly Stargates with an Access Control List. Unless CCP wants the player-constructed stargates that soon[tm] will be released to generate Jump Fatigue aswell, JBs should have no Fatigue either.
The stakes to install JBs in the first place are already quite high. |
Equto
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
43
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 22:13:38 -
[122] - Quote
Im not exactly sure how to phrase this without it sounding like it has a bias to it, but
With the current jump ranges, fatigue, and distances between regions, is the reduction in power projection outweigh the pain currently involved with massive (alliance or corp) moves? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1775
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 00:34:30 -
[123] - Quote
Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
280
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 01:40:33 -
[124] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far?
Some regions are grossly different sizes, if you are at the edge of a large region, you could go the other way and leapfrog 2 regions |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
886
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 03:39:42 -
[125] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:I really like the geography Phoebe has created. It has even helped break up the giant coalitions. All of this is good. I see people complain about logistics, but remember logistics is directly related to power projection. Do we really want to shift things back towards this?
As a point, the changes in geography have very little to do with power projection, and far more to do with the Aegis Sov system: you have to live in your space in order to hold it. Rental empires full of renters who won't fleet up to defend the space can't be defended by landlord alliances - the Entosis Links have to be in the rental alliance. This doesn't change even with the ability to project forces across the map in minutes. If you don't have the population density to hold a region, you won't hold it.
Nor are the power projection changes the cause of the 'break up' of the giant coalitions. The CFC/Imperium didn't break up, and N3 is currently in the process of re-forming as PL gets NCdot settled back into Delve, next door to Darkness' Guardians of the Galaxy Coalition. I expect once NCdot is firmly in place, they'll be joining the Guardians, who they've helped in multiple battles already.
Now, to the question:
One of the explicitly stated intentions of the Phoebe jump fatigue changes was the limitation of power projection across the map, while retaining the use of capital ships in a localized, defensive role. The 5LY distance certainly helps with that, however, the fatigue often winds up having an excessively chilling effect - especially given the need for relatively rapid response for Entosis defense. Capitals are already an extremely poor choice for carrying the link itself (a T2 link will lock a capital in place for 20m, minimum - 1 10m warp-up cycle, and then the 'active' cycle, which will have to run to completion regardless of whether or not the structure requires only 30 seconds of entosis work to fully restore). This has an overall effect of making these ships largely useless for defense against the harassing tactics using small, light, fast interceptors that were warned about - and which have emerged en masse, despite widespread claims by the community that these tactics would be impossible, and efforts by the devs to ensure so-called 'trollceptors' would not dominate the entosis meta. Put simply, the capital ships cannot provide the ability that would seem their primary advantage - the ability to leapfrog across multiple systems in order to defend nodes while subcapital fleets pursue intruders more directly. They can jump once. And then wait an hour before attempting to get ahead of the interceptor(s) a second time. Let's face it, an hour later, that interceptor (or group) is probably long gone.
With this in mind, is there a possibility for tying Jump Fatigue to the ADMs for the system you are jumping out of, possibly via IHUB upgrade? Considering that capital systems are also frequently market hub systems, this would also have the effect of improving the ability of nullsec entities to support and maintain local markets and local manufacturing - another stated goal of the Phoebe changes, as the intent behind the inclusion of Jump Freighters in the fatigue was to make deliveries to and from Highsec less desirable than local production, and so stimulate local manufacturing. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3926
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 10:49:52 -
[126] - Quote
I have one question, although a bit of offtopic.
When the iterations of Jump Fatigue and Aegisov are done, what will be the next thing null security space will absolutely need from CCP so the rest of the game keeps getting just random scraps of content?
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
B0RG 0VERLORD
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 11:50:11 -
[127] - Quote
well at the time fozzie&cosov was announced i remember ccp saying that jump fatigue didn't go with the sov changes,is this ccp attempt to justify removing fatigue or are they just collecting tears? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16831
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 11:55:09 -
[128] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:I have one question, although a bit of offtopic.
When the iterations of Jump Fatigue and Aegisov are done, what will be the next thing null security space will absolutely need from CCP so the rest of the game keeps getting just random scraps of content?
Resource/income distribution, and a balance pass on the 2 aspects you just mentioned should about cover it. Then CCP can ignore 0.0 for another 5 years, as they did between Dominion and Crius.
And then you can go back to saying that you'll definitely, absolutely, you really really mean it this time, quit EVE for ever and ever if you don't get WiS or wholly instanced PvP-free grinding, or whatever other windmill you want to pay CCP $15/mo for the privilege of tilting at on these forums.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
kelvin oriley
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 12:14:03 -
[129] - Quote
i hope this dosent get lost in the mess that this thread is bound to become
ok ill start this by saying in all i like the jump changes if it was a choice of having them in the game and having not in the game i would keep them they addressed a major issue of the game and solved it my question is regarding the collateral damage caused in the process
by this i mean black ops and JB networks they have lost there effectivness and usefullness and ause barrier to Participation ie i cant go with the fleet through this jb because i have a timer they dont so i get left behind and go back to the station and spin
i can not think of a solution that would solve the issues entirly without bringing back the old issues but here is my 2 cents and my question
is it possible to change the system so that the amount of fatige reciveed is in relation to the mass of the ship jumped and the distance jumped rather than just a base multiplier times distance
this would help negate the pain of traveling around in own space to join up with people by useing small fragile ships but more importently further incuraging black ops use but keeping the fix for capitals |
kelvin oriley
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 12:31:01 -
[130] - Quote
please please please dont allows this round table to become a bunch of the big ali guys wining over there super fleets they were nerfed for a reason guys so get in a real ship and put some effert into playing the game
no more we win buttons for the large coalitions
is this rearly engaging content for both players https://zkillboard.com/kill/46868091/
i think not |
|
Nyx Spire
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 13:11:11 -
[131] - Quote
Q: Will we see the other industrial ships get the 90% reduction bonus e.g mining barges exhumers
Q: Will we see the other, other industrial ships get the 90% reduction bonus e.g navatis, mining frigates
Q: Will we see shuttles and or newb ships get a 90-99% reduction in jump fatigue
Q: could we see a -50% fatigue for logi ships
Q: What are the chances of having jump fatigue removed from alliance jb networks all together. or having it tied into sov levels
Q: Are we likely to see a reduction in capital jump fuel (isatopes) required per jump now that we have jump fatigue
Q: Will the monthly ihub upgrade bill and cost in materials to build said upgrades for jb, beacons and cyno jammers be reduced due to the agis changes e.g jump fatigue
Q: Will we see drones being reinstated for supers and dreads now that their movement is more risky. and there are less structures to grind. or will they be given more high slots or turret hard points
Q: Will we see high slots and hard points added to freighters and jump freighters due to the new risks they must face being encouraged to go gate to gate
Q: With jump fatigue reducing the amount of surprise hot drop ganks are we likely to see a deployable mobile local scrambler structure. not scoop-able half a days life span, scan probable, that hides local count. like how local works in a worm hole |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1035
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 13:47:52 -
[132] - Quote
My isusse was not so much with the jump fatigue and more to do with the nerf of jump range, why couldn't you leave the range that we had before and scale up the fatigue instead on the current basis of range.
Apart from that I support the changes and like tha fact that people can have localised combat without having to maintain an ultra large watch list for all PL, and NCDOT capital pilots.
But I am aware that many people have lost the chance to do fun, so you might want to allow one jump without jump fatigue to 5 LY based on the current jump range and even if you put it back to what it was, start it after the first jump of 5LY.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1775
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 16:08:02 -
[133] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Aryth wrote:Are there any major technical hurdles to implementing the "tether" system? Distance from starting point so that you can move around the same region much better but harder to go far? Some regions are grossly different sizes, if you are at the edge of a large region, you could go the other way and leapfrog 2 regions
I don't see that as being too bad. The regions that are huge tend to have one really exploitable link inside anyway.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Racheral Tekitsu
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 17:08:33 -
[134] - Quote
5 LY for carriers seem a little excessive what about 7.5 LY Max skilled.
But on topic at least give us a skill to reduce Jump Fatigue timers and/or the exponential factor that goes into it. As for big blocs using it and possibly exploiting it yeah it happens. But so does that one or two guys that fleet up without JC 5. |
Jaime Lauren
Schadenfreude Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 17:20:08 -
[135] - Quote
Has CCP considered the dual role of carriers in logistics vs combat roles? There is no other way to transport assembled ships.
Would they consider a module (rig? implant perhaps?) That allows for a longer single jump? Perhaps some modification to jf that allows assembled ships?
Perhaps logistics and combat should be further separated. Not sure of any of the above solutions, just food for thought. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 17:58:16 -
[136] - Quote
kelvin oriley wrote:
is it possible to change the system so that the amount of fatige reciveed is in relation to the mass of the ship jumped and the distance jumped rather than just a base multiplier times distance
this would help negate the pain of traveling around in own space to join up with people by useing small fragile ships but more importently further incuraging black ops use but keeping the fix for capitals
I think this is the opposite direction that we need.
If you want small ships to get around your own space use an interceptor. Frigates and destroyers don't need any help traversing space at this point.
If you are going to look at differentiating subcap fatigue bonuses it should be based on class.
So as a question.
Would CCP consider giving subcaps different fatigue bonuses based on class? If so would you consider doing an upside down pyramid approach, giving the larger ships a bigger bonus, as travel with these is more tedious than travel with smaller ships?
The heavier ships get bridged into combat the lighter stuff travels by gates. Essentially this is an extension of what we have with capitals already. |
Blue Doughnut
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 17:59:52 -
[137] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Does CCP have a metric on rough number of subscriptions lost due to Pheobe changes?
Pheobe and ISBoxer ban were so close, it may not be able to split those 2 out though.... That's ok. We can blame ISBoxer sub losses on Phoebe anyways to help convince them to reverse this awful change. I want my power back. |
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1018
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 18:01:26 -
[138] - Quote
We've gathered all the questions posed so far and now we are putting them into subjects so that we can have some cohesive structure. Also, the discussions between questions are useful. Thank you for participating.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
230
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 19:16:50 -
[139] - Quote
Forgive me if this has been stated elsewhere the threadnaught is too long!
I would like to say that as a low sec resident in the Amarr/Minmatar warzone for the past 18 months that that area of space has become much healthier for content since jump fatigue came into effect. We used to have a major capital supremacy group stage within the warzone who could and would project those capitals across the length and breadth of New Eden with ease. When they were bored they would drop capitals on anything in the warzone larger than a destroyer fleet if they could.
Jump fatigue made them have to choose where to base much more carefully and the health of the region has blossomed since they had to relocate. Where once there was one 1 invincible superpower there are now several groups ranging from small to large that have started to fill the void creating a more dynamic and varied environment. Capital ships are still used however mostly by local powers who have an investment in the politics of the region rather than 'oh look a Hel is undocked' and 20 Nyxs are teleported from the other side of the map in a matter of minutes.
If the effects of jump fatigue are watered down I worry that these regional players will be more likely to get squashed by returning super powers looking to regain peripheral holdings if their main fleets can afford to reach the area again from wherever they are currently deployed.
My opinion only, not looking to start an argument. Here at least. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16833
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 19:31:54 -
[140] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:We've gathered all the questions posed so far and now we are putting them into subjects so that we can have some cohesive structure. Also, the discussions between questions are useful. Thank you for participating.
I forgot you were gathering questions. I have one:
What are CCP & The CSM's thoughts on refining the Phoebe travel restrictions with a view to changing the restrictive mechanism from a flat timer to a gameplay or chance-based mechanism?
eg: jump a carrier while your jump timer is still active being possible, but having a chance, which increases with the level of the timer of landing you elsewhere in the grid, the system or just in the whole map?
eg: when a capital ship is cyno jumped, instead of just *BOOSH* you appear, you have to navigate your ship through a warp tunnel to the destination - the further away the destination, the longer you have to spend in the tunnel; The higher your fatigue, the more twisty and obstacle-strewn the path is. Clipping the edge of the tunnel might damage your hull, offline modules or land you in an expected destination.
Since many of the objections I see to the travel changes are complaints about "weaponised boredom" &c from restrictive timers that can't be mitigated or altered, then changing the mechanism to one that allows the pilot to take a risk and/or affect the outcome with piloting skill, with unexpected outcomes offering unpredictable gameplay scenarios might allieviate these complaints.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
GR455H0PPER
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 20:00:58 -
[141] - Quote
Q: with the new sov system would it be possible to have no fatigue using jump bridges in alliance space,also to avoid exploits make it so your sov is based on the constellation and not an individual system,so there cant be random systems across the coalitions to make traveling outside the region you live in easier, Q: would it be possible to have jump range restored to previous values and 10 min cool down on jump reactivation flat rate and not ship specific, no stacking. Q: would it be possible to have 5ly range with a 5 min reactivation timer not ship specific. Q: what did happen to ccp grayscale |
GR455H0PPER
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 20:05:05 -
[142] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:We've gathered all the questions posed so far and now we are putting them into subjects so that we can have some cohesive structure. Also, the discussions between questions are useful. Thank you for participating. I forgot you were gathering questions. I have one: What are CCP & The CSM's thoughts on refining the Phoebe travel restrictions with a view to changing the restrictive mechanism from a flat timer to a gameplay or chance-based mechanism? eg: jump a carrier while your jump timer is still active being possible, but having a chance, which increases with the level of the timer of landing you elsewhere in the grid, the system or just in the whole map? eg: when a capital ship is cyno jumped, instead of just *BOOSH* you appear, you have to navigate your ship through a warp tunnel to the destination - the further away the destination, the longer you have to spend in the tunnel; The higher your fatigue, the more twisty and obstacle-strewn the path is. Clipping the edge of the tunnel might damage your hull, offline modules or land you in an expected destination. Since many of the objections I see to the travel changes are complaints about "weaponised boredom" &c from restrictive timers that can't be mitigated or altered, then changing the mechanism to one that allows the pilot to take a risk and/or affect the outcome with piloting skill, with unexpected outcomes offering unpredictable gameplay scenarios might allieviate these complaints.
unexpected i think you mean,also enough with the minigame ideas please |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
921
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 20:12:15 -
[143] - Quote
My question is:
Since the Phoebe changes went live LowSec has become a far more diverse and interesting environment in which to live, will CCP take these positive changes to LowSec into account when considering further changes to Jump Fatigue and Jump Range?
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2917
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 20:21:08 -
[144] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: I forgot you were gathering questions. I have one:
What are CCP & The CSM's thoughts on refining the Phoebe travel restrictions with a view to changing the restrictive mechanism from a flat timer to a gameplay or chance-based mechanism?
.
As always, I speak for myself, not the CSM as a whole. I think the jump changes did what they set out to do. Do I think all the numbers are perfect? No, there is always room for refinement and dial turning to tweak it here and there.
A complete shift in the mechanics is also worth looking at but not one that results in 'nerf everyone except 'us'' Sadly some of the questions are leading to that. I am not sure what you mean by a gameplay mechanic. Chance? Ooooh, so much room in that word. Do you mean a chance of the person missing the destination, even by systems or a constellation (fatigue replaced by 'accuracy' which diminishes unless you allow systems and pilot to re-align) or do you mean a chance of huge fatigue or none at all?
AS Sugar said above, we are collecting and collating the questions this weekend. If you have some the end is near.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Sugar Kyle
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1019
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 21:07:07 -
[145] - Quote
Samillian wrote:My question is:
Since the Phoebe changes went live LowSec has become a far more diverse and interesting environment in which to live, will CCP take these positive changes to LowSec into account when considering further changes to Jump Fatigue and Jump Range?
They better! :P
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
318
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 23:14:44 -
[146] - Quote
I'm sure plenty of people are going to beg for the removal or heavy nerf of the jump fatigue mechanic. That'll just take us back to the problems of force projection, so I'm going to be bold and suggest it needs to go in the other direction:
Would CCP consider implementing one of Manny's earlier suggestions for jump drives, by reducing jump range to 1 system away and removing fatigue altogether?(obviously warp speed would need increasing etc, but imho jump drives create so many issues in eve they're better off being removed)
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Sakul Aubaris
IX Legio Hispana Aquila Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 01:02:27 -
[147] - Quote
First of all - I think jumpfatigue was a great idea. All in all it worked ok with some problems to be solved but it achieved the main goal of reducing the forceprojection of big Powerblocks.
But I would like to know some details.
1. What are your future plans to jump- and titanbridges? Should they be similar to each other or fulfill different roles/objectives?
2. Fatigue reduced the forceprojection of capitals a lot. Do you plan to introduce a counterpart to capblobs, because aggressors can't move their own cap fleet that easy? Remember that caps are quite common within the memberbase atm. And if you are not able to react to an enemy cap fleet could decide a war.
3. Do you plan to tweak the jumprange of jumpfreighter? And if yes, do you think local industries will be able to catch up?
4. After the introduction of jumpfatigue some players call caps useless, others still blame them op. What are your opinion about this ? Do you think caps are in place or a rebalance (maybe even a redesig) is needed?
5. Do you think about relocation of some regions to each other so that you can jump across their borders? This could remove some bottlenecks, where caps musst pass through to enter a region via gate?
6. What are your future plans for supercarriers and titans in eve? Should they become a more strategic weapon or be in line with the actual mass of scaps and the wish of their owners to use them in combat.
P.S. its late in Germany so please be patient with my bad english. |
Pah Cova
Made in Portugal S.A.
18
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 04:18:30 -
[148] - Quote
Just one question
Jump fatigue are going to disapear and jump range are going back to what it was before Phoebe for capitals?
|
Alexandra Payne
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 09:08:21 -
[149] - Quote
My question is:
For almost all mechanics a newbe can do a low power version of what a veteran can do. I think Jump Drives are fundamentally bad for the game because, at some point in your skill training, you get a new and incredible power which a newbe is totally unable to use. This adds to the feeling only veterans can play EVE and there's no room for new players. Do you agree with me that, in principle, all mechanics should be available to all players, right from day one?
Thanks |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1202
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 11:38:26 -
[150] - Quote
Are jump freighters and other industrial ships still going to lose their fatigue bonus (or get it reduced) and are jump freighters still planed to have their range reduced
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |