[이브 온라인][포이베] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5124227#post5124227

역주: '샌드박스'에 대해 그레이스케일이 장문으로 표현한 게 있음. 그레이스케일의 디자인 철학에 관심이 있다면 읽어볼만할 듯 하나, 본인은 관심없음.

Absolutely willing to revisit 5LY if there's a good reason for it. We kept it uniform because it's simpler, it breaks fleets up less and requires a somewhat smaller cyno network for optimal operations. We were throwing around 3LY and 5LY, and settled on 5 in part because it covered most of the "short" inter-region gaps. There will be some chokes, I would assume, but that's intentional.

Yes, go ahead and resub whenever you like ;)

정말 합당한 이유가 있다면, 5광년이란 거리를 재고 할수도 있음. 우리는 점프 거리가 동일한 편이 이해하기 쉽기 때문에 이를 유지할 것이며, 이가 최적화 작업에 편하고 사이노 네트워크의 사이즈를 줄이는데 좋다고 봄. 거리의 경우 우리는 3광년과 5광년 사이에서 고민했는데, 리전간 거리 중 '짧은' 곳의 대다수를 커버하는 거리인 5광년을 선택함.  당연히 좀 답답할 수도 있겠지만, 의도한 바임.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5129605#post5129605

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.

주목적:

- B-R 스타일의 전투를 줄이거나/죽이거나.

- 게이트를 통한 이동의 활성화. 게이트를 최중요 인터랙션 포인트로 활성화시키고 이를 통해 게임을 더 흥미롭게 만듬.

부목적

- 얼라이언스 보급관리가 너무 힘겨운 일이 되지 않는 한에서, 보급을 끊는 것이 널섹 얼라에게 중요한 공격 수단이 되도록 함.

- 전투 시 증원 방어가 더 쉽도록 하게 하여 전장을 다른 시스템까지 확대시키고 흥미로운 전술 유발.

- 널섹 리더들이 지역 기반의 작은 그루핑을 장려하도록 하여 좀 더 정기적이고 흥미로우며 전투 지향적인 충돌을 유발시킴.

So there's two parts to this:

- First, capital ships are not intended to be solo assets, so we don't tend to weight the needs of solo capital pilots when doing balance work. That's not to say we think solo players shouldn't have them, or that we're in any way actively working against such things, but rather that just we recognize players will do all kinds of interesting things with the tools we give them, but we don't feel beholden to automatically supporting all these sorts of use cases when making adjustments.

- Secondly, if you're looking for suggestions, I'd propose either a) figuring out where your necessary cyno points are likely to be and negotiating for transit rights with whoever controls those systems, or b) find some other people to work with to try and solve your problem together (moving capitals in a group and getting a couple of scouts in nearby systems so you can move the fleet with low risk). Nullsec is deliberately set up to make working with other people the optimal solution to as many of its problems as possible :)

- 캐피털쉽들은 개인 자산으로 생각치 않으며, 밸런스 잡을 때도 솔로 캐피털 파일럿이라는 측면에 대해선 고려하지 않음.