These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Command Bursts and the New World of Fleet Boosting

First post First post
Author
Daugan
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#341 - 2016-08-29 23:46:05 UTC
Please take your hands off my faithful rorqual, she does not need to be another failed content generator for you to :shobon: about.
Desiderya
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#342 - 2016-08-29 23:57:55 UTC
Hm, beloved Fozzie,

The ranges on the modules seem very restrictive, especially for smaller, mobile gangs. Would it be possible to include a falloff range for these modules to provide some extra range at reduced efficiency?
As it stands now, the smaller the gang is the more it will focus anchor hugging, especially for CDs. This will hit static logi/anchor fleets much less than already more challenging skirmishing fleets.
Alternatively it may be beneficial for the smaller ships to provide the boosts in faster bursts - if you miss a beat oyu can more readily return to refresh the boost - to keep it in line with the less static nature of skirmishing vs typical fleet engagements.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#343 - 2016-08-30 00:00:03 UTC
On a nearly unrelated tangent:

Since we're going to remove skills that just let you have more numbers of people in a fleet, perhaps we could do a similar thing with other skills? Corp Management (number of members) for instance? Maybe even the Trade (buy/sell order limits) or contracting skills too?

They seem like such silly and arbitrary limits. They could be replaced with other relevant skills that add to the gameplay instead of becoming mandatory just to participate in the game. Much like the learning skills of old, there are many skills that need their own version of Tiericide.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#344 - 2016-08-30 00:03:15 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Its too easy to kill a rorqual on grid.. especially with the use of cloaky campers in the system (which will spot the anon/belts) which simply could tell a friend to (drop drag bubble aligned to the station/citadel). needless to say the hotdroppers will easily jump in and tackle the ship with what ever they have so its dead in the water, meanwhile the pilot in a panick could hit is "captain savior mod" which locks him and all his miner buddies (ones who could have reshipped but no they're stuck like chuck as well) into place to provide even more supper for the ganking beasties....


Maybe the PANIC BUTTON should only freeze and immunize the Rorqual itself... maybe all the industrial ships in fleet and in range should instead be flung outwards away from the Rorqual at insane speeds like siege dreadnaughts being POS bowled? Hey, once they come to rest off-grid (yes, send them 10s of 1000s of km away!), they can warp to safety/go reship to something useful to come back and defend the Rorqual once its panic button timer ends.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#345 - 2016-08-30 00:12:40 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.

Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.

Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.


I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing!

Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging).
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#346 - 2016-08-30 00:16:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Quote:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.


Deleted post and those quoting it for the above reasons. Also Quitting post are restricted to Out Of Pod Subforum. If your post was deleted because your quitting feel free to open a brand spanking new thread down there.

As Always,

Some edge cases were left alone. If you believe your post was removed by mistake feel free to file support ticket.

Reopened.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Mafone
The Dark Space Initiative
Initiative Mercenaries
#347 - 2016-08-30 01:09:01 UTC
OK First off off grid boosts needed nerfed - they were op.

However have a number of problems with this as [email protected]

Firstly the command processors becoming rigs is a nerf to Command ships - instead of the present up to 7 links per ship they get 4 and have to be ongrid. (they can only fit 2 rigs)
A T1 BC can now get the same number ie 4 (links - it has 3 rig slots to T2s 2) if not the same effect multipliers.
Also notice from the figures given that you have not only nerfed range (needed - ongrid is good) but also amount of boost and duration (not good).

Your figures state for example:
Max skirmish boosts will be Reduces signature radius -32.34% at present at a range of 50km for 1 min - I am presently sitting my booster in a Slepneir getting - 34.5% sig radius reduction with much longer duration/range.
Similarely Armored Warfare passive defence is being nerfed from system wide enduring boost of 25.88% to short range short timed 21.56%

As I said there does need to be some work done to remove off grid boosts (and I say that from someone who flys boosts a lot) but Nerfing range, duration and effect for something that people have put a lot of skill points and time into needs much more thought.
As well as making Fleet command Skill needed to get max boost range skills from something that lets face it was only needed by FC's for large alliances where fleets approach the max number of players to something more needed as a 12x skill is not cool.

My suggestion would be:
1) Make all boosts on grid - 50-70km range or so with skills might work. Needs to be large enough to allow logistics to be at range and still get boosts.

2) Command Ships need to at least be able to fit 3 links as a base possibly with 3 Rig slots to allow some variations on the present max multi link ships obviously fitting should be nerfed by the command processors as presently to nerf max tank etc.

3) Links should definately NOT be nerfed in all 3 of range, duration and amount.
Yes make gameplay more active and ongrid but the boosts should be increased over the present amounts with max skills - oh and all this is gonna cost you in ammo costs that you don't have now -

4) Leadership skills need some love in this - after all why would someone train them now apart for boosting toons. Small gangs and kitchen sink fleets (which may presently may not have dedicated command ships of any sort) just got significantly nerfed as the passive bonuses do not apply - so this favours larger more organised fleets who lets face it already have max leadership skills/ppl - and makes small gangs much more vulnerable unless they bring command ships etc. I think some sort of balance is required in this perhaps making leadership 5 necessary for squad command, and providing some sort of low level boost as at present.

TBH i think it will be hard to not present this as a nerf to high skill players - yes they do get perhaps better gameplay but for much less reward - as someone who has nearly 2 years of skill training invested in leadership between my toons this needs much more work and as they say the devil is in the detail - much more of which is needed and needs to be tweaked.

I hope this is constructive
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#348 - 2016-08-30 01:17:02 UTC
Sylvia Kildare wrote:
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.

Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.

Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.


I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing!

Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging).


I think it has less to do with being an offensive action, and more about you don't want people to be able to abuse the docking/refitting/tethering mechanics? When you have a weapons timer you can't do any/all of those (i think?).

You don't want people to engage Bastion mode, soak up a bunch of damage, and be able to dock whenever they want (even if they never fired a single shot). Along similar lines, you don't want someone to be able to throw out a bunch of bonuses and then be able to go dock, or refit off a carrier, or anything like that.

As for the ammo thing, I think people are making a bigger deal about this than will be warranted. I'm willing to bet that for 99% (made up statistics are fun) of the cases, there will be no functional difference between having ammo or scripts or anything they could make up. Ammo probably works better for some weird legacy code reason and I'm cool with just leaving it at that. Not that my way of thinking is right and yours is wrong, it's pure opinion, and i'm just throwing mine out there too.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Mackenzie Hawkwood
Event Horizon Expeditionaries
The Watchmen.
#349 - 2016-08-30 01:23:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mackenzie Hawkwood
Clifffitir Awik wrote:
I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.

Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.


Its because Fozzie hates off grid boosts with a passion and want to turn Rorquals into loot pinatas to pad killboards. For the last 3 yrs, at Eve Down Under, players have been saying that this is a bad idea to CCP Mimic,

But as usual its a case of 'Adapt or wait til CCP fixes it.' The feedback will be as usual ignored in this thread, then the SISI feedback will be also ignored, the face to face feedback at Eve-Vegas/EDU will also be ignored and finally the feedback will be yet again ignored on release.

It will be another case of Fozzie "You can have Sov or you can have fun"

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that. - Kina Ayami

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#350 - 2016-08-30 01:24:31 UTC
Wow, CCP has wanted to get rid of OGB since i started the game. And the countless threads and complaints about links since then. But now all of a sudden a everyone wants to keep them? seriously? I assume is all high sec afkers. Well it is hardly a burden to put them on grid in highsec.

I generally like where this is going. I think the range is a problem, perhaps bigger boosts for command ships or a bigger base range. But not too much. i think 150km is a little too much. It should at least be quite a bit less than minimum warp range. Otherwise we are back to probing down links again.

And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.

Scrips make more sense than ammo.

but i like the rig idea for command processes, i think. In fact we never run more than 3 links for grid links since you now need some tank and stuff. lotsa links and squishy ships don't work well on grid.

As for all the people wanting skills back? Well i don't like the changes to PI, give me my skill back. I don't like the changes to cap ships, give me my skill back .. i don't like. Really again. It never works. If the skill has a use, even if you don't use it, you DON'T get it back. At least now you can drain em into injectors.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Rath Valent
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#351 - 2016-08-30 01:26:03 UTC
Will it be possible to light the boosts while in warp?

RV
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#352 - 2016-08-30 01:27:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
How about instead of boosts working for a fixed time they worked based upon hull size? The reason is a frigate (like a t1 tackle or an Inty) will likely not be in range of fleet boosts for very long. It will just be annoying to have to retag up with a fleet booster every minute to get boosts. Something like frigates get it for 6 minutes, titans get it for 1 minute.

Edit: Or give tackle ships a role bonus. Something to make them not have to run to mother fleet every minute.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#353 - 2016-08-30 01:36:23 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:


And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.



Given that they combined two of the shield and armor links into one module, for the most part you are on an equal footing now. You really only need to make a tough choice if you are boosting skirmish links under the new system.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Raven Ship
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2016-08-30 01:38:48 UTC
As for plans, about forcing Rorqual pilots to get on belts, and then immobilize them self with industry core or any other tool.

This will be generate imbalance, thing could be only an possible if all capital ships would work that way, so let's but dps/ehp/any other stat of cariers, mother-ships and titans, by half compared to what it is now, and give them immobilize siege/bastion/core module, using what would immobilize them for 5min and bring performance back to current level.

Then for WH static, and rolling them by those looking for easy picks. WH's should be made one way passage, as addiction to above changed.

Also as were on topic, as a result of rant of risk vs reward slogan, mining barges/exhumes/industrial ships, should get much greater combat abilities than pvp ships in similar size, why? as those are worth much more, and there is no risk involved in fighting with them.
What is already main reason for why those pew pew pilots, prefer to fight with industrial ships, as it involves no risk for them, but if they have so huge risk aversion, then why coming with risk vs reward slogan all the time.
Mila Joevovich
Pheonix Rising Corp
#355 - 2016-08-30 01:40:18 UTC

To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?

I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?

So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#356 - 2016-08-30 01:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Delt0r Garsk
FT Diomedes wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:


And command ships losing a default burst/command mod is not so cool. 3 is better.



Given that they combined two of the shield and armor links into one module, for the most part you are on an equal footing now. You really only need to make a tough choice if you are boosting skirmish links under the new system.

We really like to run two shied links (resits and cycle times/rep)+ the range link for scrams etc.

And just to all those ppl saying "just put links on grid" You do know that grids are now thousands of kms in size. This would amount to changing NOTHING.

Really where were all these people (the links are fine the way they are) when this was/has been hashed out and discussed for years?

And why is mining such a special snowflake?

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Gene Greyy
Pheonix Rising Corp
#357 - 2016-08-30 01:48:30 UTC
Mila Joevovich wrote:

To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?

I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?

So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.



Very much this!!!! The hard-core pvper's can jack-off to their killboards because they won't have anymore mining barges, freighters, or indy's mucking up their stats.
Removal Tool
ElitistOps
WE FORM V0LTA
#358 - 2016-08-30 01:58:03 UTC
Not sure if it's been asked, haven't read every post.

Are you going to change the Vulture into a proper Fleet Command ship by giving it a shield HP bonus similar to the Armor HP bonus of the Damnation?

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#359 - 2016-08-30 01:58:25 UTC
Raven Ship wrote:
As for plans, about forcing Rorqual pilots to get on belts, and then immobilize them self with industry core or any other tool.

This will be generate imbalance, thing could be only an possible if all capital ships would work that way, so let's but dps/ehp/any other stat of cariers, mother-ships and titans, by half compared to what it is now, and give them immobilize siege/bastion/core module, using what would immobilize them for 5min and bring performance back to current level.

Then for WH static, and rolling them by those looking for easy picks. WH's should be made one way passage, as addiction to above changed.

Also as were on topic, as a result of rant of risk vs reward slogan, mining barges/exhumes/industrial ships, should get much greater combat abilities than pvp ships in similar size, why? as those are worth much more, and there is no risk involved in fighting with them.
What is already main reason for why those pew pew pilots, prefer to fight with industrial ships, as it involves no risk for them, but if they have so huge risk aversion, then why coming with risk vs reward slogan all the time.


I'd like to introduce you to the bastion, siege, and triage modules, the cynosural field generator, and the doomsday device. All of which have severe penalties to movement when activated, thus forcing you to commit to your activity of choice for at least a few minutes. They all have amazing capabilities while the module is active, and are fairly meh otherwise.

Mila Joevovich wrote:

To Fozzie, Team Fiveo, and CCP in general. Please, if you are going to screw over the non-pvp community like this, why not just drop the pre-text of having any pve at all? Just save us all the time and be rid of the carebears altogether? They're scum-bags anyway and they won't be missed...nothing of value will be lost (as I've heard time and again). So why not just get rid of mining, exploration, and any other non-pvp activity. Just call it a day and get rid of us altogether, why not?

I'm sure you would all be overjoyed to have us gone anyway. The market scammers would be a little put out but it's a small price to pay to be rid of the filth that is carebears. You obviously don't need them anyway, you're never going to listen to them either so, why not just be rid of this part of the game? You don't actually need an economy, just seed ships into the game, get rid of all the ice belts, roids, blueprints, PI, and exploration. In fact, just get rid of High sec altogether. Wouldn't that just be a pvp paradise?

So, what do you say Fozzie? It sure would save me the time of wasting my breath trying to stand up for non-pvp activities. I'm sure you'd be happy to not even have to skip over these posts like you always seem to do anyway. What do you say, rid the game of all those scum-bag, coward, worthless, gutless, spineless, pansies and move on with the people you want (and everybody else wants) in this game. I think it would be an amazing game without us constantly ruining for you!!!! This is fully serious, I'd just like to have a real answer instead of being insulted, intimidated, humiliated, and outright ignored.


I'll file this under the "If you change my gameplay in ANY way that I view as negative, you're KILLING my hopes and dreams and all desire to play the game. WAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!" section. Thanks for your constructive and valuable criticism. Especially since mining and mining links are the CORE gameplay for ALL non-pvp in the game. And the barbaric concept of wanting balance and parity for all gameplay mechanics is pure applesauce! Why shouldn't people who don't particularly want to engage in pvp while undocked be completely immune to all pvp activities? /sarcasm through the same absurdity you used

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#360 - 2016-08-30 02:11:26 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Alhira Katserna wrote:
Annia Aurel wrote:
Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?
Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ...


Good question. I hope they get refunded as they´re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet.

They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund?

Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills.



Refund because there are people who trained them specifically for the passive boosts with no intention of ever using a command boat. These skills now serve absoultely (atomic motion stopped) zero purpose. And skill extractors being available is a poor excuse since they cost on low average of 250M isk a piece in game or actual money. Additionally, you don't get a one for one return on those extracted skill points. This is why refunding those skill points, if only the point for the warfare skills, would be a good move.

Who's your end of the world buddy?