|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lets see how these new changes settle out. They can always adjust things if these don't do enough.
By the way, many organizations are not incentified to build in deep 0.0 because it is still easier to haul from Jita. The, making it harder to haul from Jita part of the original plan could have been the first part to making null sec more self sufficient.
As long as it is easier to get things from Jita than build it themselves, they will. Its only human nature.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Etrei Kordisin wrote:It's nice to know that CCP trusts the playerbase to not use the massive loophole that these changes open up, too. Nullsec players are absolutely above the idea of swapping to T1 industrials in order to utilise a starbase bridge network to jump halfway across eve in hardly any time.
That should not be allowed. CCP should change this before it goes live.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Obunagawe wrote:Since Titans and Supercarriers can now use gates it seems only fair to allow them to dock at stations.
I don't agree with this to be honest. They can be parked in a CSMA. CCP just needs to fix the role/rights thing.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 20:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:afkalt wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:xttz wrote:Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out. Discussing it. You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors. HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery. or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength
Maybe make them immune to only +1 strength disrupters and a +x core strength. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 20:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:afkalt wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:xttz wrote:Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out. Discussing it. You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors. HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery. or go simpler and just trade the immunity for +x warp core strength Doesnt fix the problem of them jumping a gate and instantly leaving - that was the issue at hand. With being unable to bubble - you cant stop that. Unless there's something artificial stopping the gate jump.
Ok, change the align mechanic to where each ship class has a minimum align time and all things that affect align time stack logarithmically to that minimum align time.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 15:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I have not checked the entire thread, but has this been a Tippia free thread?
Tippia is probably on a sabbatical from Eve online.
No posts in 10 days.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: ...2 of 7 unsubbed, the rest over the next 2 months....
So much drama over such little changes. Learn to adapt like previous players in years past. What about "things change, and you will need to change with them" don't players understand.
Its called adapting. Our species has done it for many years. These self-serving alternate ideas don't help much either.
It has been far too easy for a single organization to cross the game universe to influence nearly anything they wanted to. These are initial changes to get players used to what will be coming later.
The way you played before is over. If this doesn't do it CCP will do more to make it so. Get used to it and find new ways to have fun. Its not hard. (like they nano nerf whiners who didn't rage:quit for reals did)
And yes, it is their game, not yours, no matter how many game months/years you have played on your 20+ accounts. Although they will take reasonable feedback at times, they don't have too.
Yes,... it is CCP's game. And no, the customer isn't always right, even though they insist they are, nearly all the time.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 05:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Please .... if you haven't done null logistics, don't speak on it.
I'm sure there will be new ways of doing things that will make your ways obsolete, so it probably doesn't matter. I'm sure everyone's feedback is desired, even those who always assume they know best, because they did it an old way.
Btw, there is more than one way to do logistics.
Been there, done that. Got the "bored to tears" tee-shirt. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 17:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Polo Marco wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:
It's over dude, just let go.
Quitters never win, and winners never quit.
Knowing when you have lost is part of winning.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Easthir Ravin wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: You're still explaining the solution, not the problem. To be clear, we broadly *like* the collateral effects, that's why we're happy with the planned changes. If you want to convince us to change course, the most effective thing to do is to convince us that our *goals* need improvement, rather than simply pitching alternate implementations.
Now we are getting somewhere. What exactly are your *goals* so that we may convince you that they need improving? You seem to be a little out of touch with your player base. Help us to help you. Developing in a vacuum, is your prerogative as EVE is yours, but it would not be the best route IMO.
Your assumptions are incorrect. Only part of the player base are unable to see what the issue is and why it is being fixed this way. They seem to refuse to because they most benefited from the problem in the first place.
This may not be the case for all of the ones who can't figure this out(or refuse to), but it certainly does for many of them.
|
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Byson1 wrote: It will have no effect on coalitions other than it will change some tactics. It will however effect small alliances. If you dont have the manpower to move your goods/ defend your space 24/7 then you dont get to stay in null. Go join a large alliance.
I believe this is what CCP is going for.
If this is not the vision of CCP, please could someone tell me what they are shooting for?
It will be the start of removing a reason to be in a large coalition. If you can't get way over there to help in a reasonable time, why be part of the organization.
To be honest, I think you underestimate CCP's desire the remove the need for large coalitions. If this doesn't do the trick they will make it even harder to move combat forces.
What I do hope they implement in the Sov changes is the "Treaties" idea from several years ago. That and these movement changes can go a long way to Null a lot friendlier to smaller organizations. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 15:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:.......
They both need doing, but in this order there's a chance of something interesting happening in-game over the Christmas holiday, rather than not having any changes hit before probably January. Sov changes incoming in January! Developed in series rather than in parallel, sorry :) ...Go back to twice yearly releases that can be written in parallel and tested as a release rather than rolling releases that have no time for testing and player feedback
I don't think so. Around two years content seems to have been released since they started a more Agile approach.
To be honest, I think you are playing the doom and gloom approach to try and get what you want. It wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't already been played to death on these forums.
One day that may turn out to be true, but too many have cried wolf with theories that never panned out. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 16:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
Polo Marco wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by..... I'm not sure that's wise, relegating us to 'asset' status. But this is why we have dialogue. to assist understanding. It makes my comprehension of your next answer a bit clearer. Byson1 wrote:Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it. CCP Greyscale wrote:Primary goals: - Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out. - Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game
Secondary goals: - Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative - Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences - Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.
The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way. Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone. Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing. My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.'
You seem to ignore all the new play style choices this appears to offer. Less massive groups ROFL-stomping on anything that thinks of deploying a capital means that there will be a lot more smaller fights going on.
You seem to ignore all the possible positives of this change and overly amplify any possible negatives.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 06:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Tikitina wrote:Polo Marco wrote:I'm not sure that's wise, relegating us to 'asset' status. But this is why we have dialogue. to assist understanding. It makes my comprehension of your next answer a bit clearer. Byson1 wrote:Could you please restate your goals. Maybe one more time and the vision might open up. I personally dont see it. CCP Greyscale wrote:Primary goals: - Severely reduce/eliminate B-R-style fights, on the grounds that the marginal inherent value of a 4000-ship fight over a 2000-ship fight is pretty small, and the negative value accrued by the inevitable lag more than cancels that out. - Create more traffic traveling through gates in nullsec, on the grounds that gates are a primary interaction point, and more interaction makes for a more interesting game
Secondary goals: - Make disruption of logistics a more viable weapon for nullsec alliances, on the grounds that it opens up a more interesting range of options for waging war, provided that we don't make the experience of managing alliance logistics too negative - Make it more viable to intercept reinforcements on their way to a battle, on the grounds that it spreads the load out across more system, allows for more interesting tactics and allows major battles to produce a wider range of opportunities and give roles to a wider range of player types and preferences - Incentivize nullsec leaders to gravitate towards smaller political groupings, on the grounds that doing so will lead to more regular, more interesting and more combat-dense conflicts.
The primary goals are what're driving the feature; the secondary goals are things we are hoping to effect to varying degrees along the way. Somewhere THE PLAYER has gotten lost in all this theorycrafting. The loss of playstyle choices here and added grind is staggering. You asked me before what things I felt were wrong with your plan, well this is right up there at the top of the list. You are not just nerfing game objects, you seem to be trying to nerf the players too. That is a dead end street for any GM. If you have certain players or player groups who are disrupting your game, you deal with them individually rather than making blanket protocols that hamper everyone. Don't worry, I'm not going to quit playing, but my opinion is not going to go away either. I don't see hostile intent in your changes, but meaning well and doing it unfortunately are not always the same thing. My father used to always say "Son - The road to hell is PAVED with good intentions.' You seem to ignore all the new play style choices this appears to offer. Less occurrences of massive groups ROFL-stomping on anything that thinks of deploying a capital means that there will be a lot more smaller fights going on. You seem to ignore all the possible positives of this change and overly amplify any possible negatives. My worry is that it will still be too easy to project power for the largest and best organized groups - in other words that we will take bitter medicine and still have the disease.
I would expect that if these initial changes don't do the trick there will be further changes. Keep track of fatigue on players and unpackaged ships could be an option.
There are work arounds to that as well, but they start to get costly. And if not costly enough, add an assembly fee each time you assemble a ship.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 17:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:How do you suppose you'll project power with a JF? Bump them to death with your fat pig of a ship?
I think people are forgetting what Power Projection is.
Quote:Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfareGÇöi.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory.
In this game it is the current ability for Capital Fleets to get nearly anywhere on the map to intimidate other Alliances and implement policy by means of force.
That means they have unlimited power projection pre-update. What CCP is trying to do with these changes and the forthcoming Sov changes is to limit how far Alliances can project power from their controlled space.
Jump Freighters are a facilitator of Power Projection in this game, and a powerful one. They won't be touched much by the initial change due to CCP wanting to keep Null Sec industry viable until the can address it more directly.
As stated by CCP, once they fix Null Sec industry so it can be more independent, they plan to readdress the Jump Freighter.
Limiting Power Projection will allow a lot more different organizations to develop without having to contend with organizations from the other side of the map on a daily/weekly basis.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 08:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
K'rysteena Mocking'Jay wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Greyscale, you are knocking it out of the park with these responses. These two posts in particular made me very happy. More feedback, though: I'll admit that I don't really like how it can take up to 30 whole days to let your fatigue decay back to 1.0. The desire to keep the constant speed to a certain LY/min is good, and having a maximum cooldown of around 3 days is fine, but adding a decay factor is not inimical to either of these. I did a bunch of research on this and made a pretty big spreadsheet to look at tweaking the numbers. By changing the MAXIMUM fatigue possible to 5760 (4 days instead of 3) and adding a per-minute-per-fatigue decay of 0.00008, the system is almost identical: * A minor advantage to the player, jumping as far as you can as early as you can gets you to maximum cooldown only 15-20 minutes faster, over the course of about 24 hours (that is, the last jump is that much earlier) * As a disadvantage to the player, the worst cooldown you can get after a jump is a bit longer, but if you jump whenever possible you should still see approximately the same cooldowns (both right around 2d 17h) and very long cooldowns will be rare and actually hard to achieve.** With these key points being essentially the same, it takes 14 days, 23 hours, and 2 minutes to decay to minimum fatigue instead of an entire subscription month of 30 days. This means that the player can jump about like a panicked rabbit TWICE a month instead of once, and the consequences for doing so won't be quite so bad -- but tactically, neither is particularly relevant. Higher or lower decay factors primarily achieve different maximum fatigue decay times. Generally speaking, about 1 day is knocked off for every 0.00001 in the decay factor, and the other factors discussed (time to max out your fatigue and average panic-move cooldown) do not change significantly until the time for your fatigue to decay is rather less than 2 weeks. Yes, it seems like a slightly more complicated system. However, it should be fairly easy to implement and should be to players' advantage, and probably better for the game. Most anything that happens in EVE in 30 days can happen in 15, and I don't know of any compelling argument to let the maximum penalty be as bad as currently described. **The maximum achievable cooldown is about 3 days 15 hours, since it decays a bit from maximum while you are waiting for the last jump's cooldownedit: here is my spreadsheet. if you save a copy it works but it's really slow; i recommend downloading as XLSX and using actual Excel Wow excellent work in supporting a crap idea. Carriers are SUPPOSED to take ships into battle over distances, Super Carriers are SUPPOSED to do the same but bigger and better. This game already takes years to play well as it is, I don't think waiting 3 freaking days to move a ship is good return on investment for my time. Its almost like CCP wants you to have to sub more alts to combat stupidity (hmmmm there might be something in that) and you are merely taking ships people love to fly and punishing them for it.I feel like I am taking crazy pills, and all of EVE has lost their collective senses.
Then don't do battle where it takes three days to get there.
You are actually justifying the changes to be honest. If it takes you three days to get there, you are probably a lot farther from your home base than you should be, or want to be.
That kind of shows how this change will actually reduce the power projection of big Alliances to some extent.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
187
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 09:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ren Keratta wrote:Saisin wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: Alts allow the most valuable asset, the player, to move about very quickly, simply by logging into the right one on the right account. Nerfing alts, or multiple accounts, will not happen. ....
Generally speaking, yes, I think we would prefer to limit that as well if it were possible without severely mangling other big-picture goals. There's no obvious way to do so that I can see, though. I do not believe you have much to do to be able to significantly curve the use of alts for caps operations... With the upcoming fatigue rules, just have the jump fatigue NOT wear away when the account is not paid for, and automatically give some amount of jump fatigue to any character in an account that has just been created or reactivated. Newbie will not care having jump fatigue, as it will wear out before they are able to use a ship for which it matters. And large coalitions with a ton of isk and plexes, that can fund these kind of alt teleporting will just not be able to use those at will, creating an isk sink if they want to keep their alts paid for all the time. +1 for this!!!!!
So jump fatigue per account, not character.
Hmm. I'm not sure. That might affect a cap pilot and a subcap pilot doing blackops on the same account when trying to do two different things.
I'd rather have ship and pilot fatigue timers. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
189
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 18:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: My point is that a big reason that 0.0 exists in the way it does today is because you've made the logistics side TOO easy. In fact the commentary on this done by the CSM rep CoreBloodBrothers is a very good point to this (I listened to the interview he gave with Bob's Corner). It shouldn't take one JF pilot a few minutes to jump goods to a whole region like that... Think about all the PVP that is potentially wasted becuase things like Freighter OPS using gates are a thing of the past now. Can you image the amount of loss that would happen when you loose 10-20 freighters full of goods?! In fact I seem to remember this actually happening a couple times before all this bridge foolishness was released. Honestly, you should just remove pos bridges completely while you are at it.
Oh my god - i cant believe this. Finally a voice that points out what i posted a few days back. Get completely rid of those jump bridges!!! +1 and my full support to a player who has actually been in the real industry mess of null :)
I was in several 3-5 freighter supply convoys 20-40 jump into null sec before Jump Freighters and it was some of the most nail biting pvp I've ever been in.
The chaos of getting chased then cutoff and trapped and then logging them off safely was pretty intense.
Then getting the Alliance to log back in at the same time to get them the rest of the way without getting trapped again was interesting. It worked out though. I think we only lost 1 of the 5 on that trip. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:47:35 -
[19] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Tikitina wrote: I was in several 3-5 freighter supply convoys 20-40 jump into null sec before Jump Freighters and it was some of the most nail biting pvp I've ever been in.
lets just mosey on over to the corp history Quote:CURRENT CORPORATION Imperial Academy [IAC] from 2013.08.18 16:17 to this day oh the person extolling the virtues of freighter ops has never been in anything but a npc corp, you say what a shock
You must be new here. This is like my 8th forum alt since I started playing.
Some of us like our positions on the forums to not be related to our current in-game activities.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 13:53:20 -
[20] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
There is a reason Eve Online is known as Alts Online.
One of my other accounts has been playing since October 2004 for example.
Then they should post on their main.
Many of us don't care about the post with your main thing.
What I say on the forums is separate to what I do in game, and it will always be that way.
You may think that since I don't post with my main what I say doesn't matter, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The ones who listen to what one says regardless of who they are and listen to what I saying, not who I am, are the ones I'm talking to. |
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 15:51:58 -
[21] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Edit 2: Freighter ops are ******* dull. I can barely stand flying a freighter 10 jumps in highsec. much less 40 jumps through null. But that's my opinion, not a statement of fact. Some people may enjoy them. Some people are also bonkers. vOv
A Rapier or Huginn with a faction web and a bit of practice makes it a lot easier.
Of course, you needed to be in the same Corp when you start out in HiSec. Once you were in Null, anyone could web them once the Freighter got a bit of speed going during align.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 03:32:51 -
[22] - Quote
Easthir Ravin wrote:Sure a carrier group takes time to get to Okinawa, but that is its JOB to do that....EVE is already time consuming as it is, no mechanic should purposely increase the time it takes to do anything in this game.
Time as space are key attributes that both tactics and strategy take advantage of.
Make it so you can be anywhere at anytime and you destroy some of the best strategies and tactics that smaller forces have used to counter larger forces, and vice versa.
Dramatically increase the time it takes to get anywhere and that will dramatically improve the diversity of the strategies and tactics available, instead of just blob. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
196
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 16:46:44 -
[23] - Quote
afkboss wrote:30 Days for the upper limit still seems very extreme. Hell a week seems Extreme. I think the Devs might have to think of it from more of a players perspective because if I get a 30 day timer i will just unsub for a month until its gone.
Capitals were never meant to be the end of the line in training and gameplay. If you are only willing to fly capitals, that shows how bad things have gotten in this regard.
To be honest, players should be willing to fly T1 frigates if the circumstances require them. The biggest thing that prevents that is clone costs in my opinion.
When your clone costs nearly one hundred times as much as a warship, something is wrong.
|
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
213
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 05:37:15 -
[24] - Quote
Expecting quick changes from a group whole doesn't want to change is rather silly. CCP seems to have a goal and this was only the first step. Stated many times.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out in the next year or so, especially after the Sov changes and Capital rebalance. IE: Holding Sov related to activity level.
Note: I don't think crying about how everyone has decided to stop playing because it got too hard to do what they want is going to win anyone over to your side.
People will eventually get bored enough to try new things. IE, adapt to change. |
|
|
|