These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Silven Rubis
Thundercats
The Initiative.
#501 - 2016-08-30 12:44:35 UTC
Ginger Naari wrote:
[quote=big miker]Awesome changes, I love it!

....

Let's consider the Tengu for this example.

Every 60 / 130 seconds you warp in the Tengu with a alt. You align out with the cloaking device running.
Deactivate cloaking device, hit link buffs and warp off to a safespot.

It's almost uncatchable since you'll be able to instantly warp it out after decloaking. Not to mention it's nullified so bubbles won't be a issue at all. Blog also mentioned link buffs will require alot of capacitor, which will be no problem for t3c at all ( yay cap battery's ).




How twisted this patch need to be if a playstyle of warping in and out highfrequently to apply boosts come into mind. Another reason to consider using amunition as the wrong way to apply boosts.
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club
Streamfleet
#502 - 2016-08-30 12:53:37 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.

How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space).

You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying.

Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.


you will be able to spread out easily afterwards too.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#503 - 2016-08-30 12:55:11 UTC
I keep getting this vision of CCP trying to pull crack out of an addicts hand while saying "it's for your own good" while the addict cries and screams Twisted

Some of these folks actually don't seem to know that EVE is possible without constant boosts and as far as mining goes it will all level out (fewer minerals being mined means the mins you do mine will eventually be worth more). I'm glad I never got addicted to boosts in the 1st place.
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#504 - 2016-08-30 12:55:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Trant
Desiderya wrote:
The initial boost on the warp in is indeed an advantage. But on the other hand, plex advantage is also a big deal...

Yes it is, but there is a clear exploit going to be available here. People who attack FW plexes are still going to be setting up dedicated off grid boosters. A Claymore with a set of 3 boosting rigs and 6 boosting modules for example. The attacking fleet warps to the gate and aligns. FC calls fleet in, Claymore fires off all 6 boosts and then warps to safety. Throw in a second booster alt and you can apply all 12 boosts.

Yes it only applies for one minute (or slightly more depending on skills), but the attacker also has the advantage of deciding whether to take the fight or not. He simply doesn't activate the gate if he hasn't got an overwhelming advantage and is sure he can break the enemy in that first minute.

If anything this will make offgrid boosting safer. At least in the current system it is possible to hunt them down. But the new system allows them to bounce to a safe and cloak up or simply bounce between safes.

Edit: Looks like the maximum number of boosts a command ship can carry will be 5, but still a valid concern.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#505 - 2016-08-30 13:00:43 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Lord Mudeki wrote:

I don't afk mine never have I used 6 accounts to mine with but with these changes I'm letting 3 unsub as I wont be mining anymore not putting a rorq in a belt

but that is the problem that most want fixed. This 100% safe rorq thing that you think you should have. It was never meant to be that way and CCP have been saying for years that this is *going* to change. And *lots* of people have been howling for this change for years. Calling off grid boosting cancer etc....

The mistake made was letting you have a 100% safe rorq in the first place so that you have unrealistic expectations.


EVE players call things they don't like cancer all the time.

Doesn't necessarily make it objectively so, though...
X Mayce
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#506 - 2016-08-30 13:09:09 UTC
Please remove the industrial core from the game, or at least its "pinned down in space for 5 mins"

super defensive weapon all shiny and stuff, but that it is mandatory because this flippin slow giant has to wait out the timer is a joke.

Oh and that i manually have to press the boosts every 1-2 minutes? - seriously?

World of Warcraft Classic Paladin sends his greetings, please get a nice cloth dress for the rorqual *sarcasm*
Echo Mande
#507 - 2016-08-30 13:12:28 UTC
Overall it's an interesting set of changes that will have to be thoroughly tested. A lot of the suggestions here (bonusing orca/rorq for armor and shield) look sane.

I find myself worrying that the burst radius may end up being lower than we'd really want. Large mining ops and battles come to mind. There may be some ways around this though.

The following things might be worth looking into adding.
- Boost drugs, working like current combat drugs. These drugs could increase range or duration of the user's boosting modules boosts. These would give Eve's drug dealers an extra source of income or alternately provide an ISK sink.
- Tuned boosting module ammo. You could have two or three types of ammo. Standard, shortrange high powered ammo and longrange lowpowered ammo. If you wanted to nerf the shortrange ammo it could also have a negative effect on duration.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#508 - 2016-08-30 13:17:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Noxisia Arkana
There are people that are mad here because they like the play style in its current form, but I think most of these posts are aimed at the whole sweeping rework of mechanics that seems frankly unnecessary.

Personally, I have no issue bringing a command ship on grid. Super easy.

But lets look at a couple of scenarios? PVP and PVE.
PVE:
C4 site running -
So we get newbros that want to site run, and we'll often provide boosts to make c4s even easier. Most of the time the fleet gets pretty spread out because you'll have pilots at varying level of skill and preference (cruisers and BCs are expecially prone here). So as a booster (or 2) there's no way I'm going to keep boosts on my fleet, and chances are good that the guys that need it (working out towards 1x falloff for shield reps) aren't going to get it.
*Conclusion: It's just inconvenient, adds a frustration to an already low paying pve activity, that's more meant to get people used to working as a group and taking squad warps than it is to make any real isk. It also means, that in 99% of the situations we would just forego boosts and use that person as a scout or additional DPS.
*Alternatively: If command links had a longer range, (100-200km?) we would hold onto them as a useful addition.

C5 site running:
Here the effect is much less pronounced mostly because the sleepers come into much closer ranges. The isk is better, we would probably still keep a command ship on field. But, at that point you may as well just have 3 basi's other than the point/web utility for the drifter battleship that spawns at the end.
*conclusion - minimal impact but it'd be a toss up if you just bring extra reps (since they'll have more range) or the command ship for a bit of utility.

PVP:
Armor WH Brawls: Really no change. We'll be fighting at 0 w/an EOS or Damnation if we're getting boosts (which is rare). Although, being able to 'apply links' before the fleet jumps through the next hole into the fight is an interesting mechanic. EDIT: I SEE THAT IS NOT THE CASE, changing systems will negate the boosts. Thanks for the correction. It'll let the command ship hold cloak to avoid being the target of nuets and let him get his next set of links off. Although, more likely he'll just uncloak and burn to tackle something.
*conclusion: no real change in gameplay.

Shield fights: This is where it gets tricky. A lot of times you're playing with a single scimitar, DPS, and some nuets. You'll generally have people at multiple ranges depending on preference (tackle, if you bring jams). If you're fighting on a hole - you maybe have something with a long point (rapier?) to grab some tackle, or a brawling gila. My point - your fleet is going to be spread out. The pilots are going to be making their own decisions on position. Commands on whether you follow enemies through or try to pull them out will be given directionally but it's on the team to figure out how to make them happen. For ganks, this doesn't really change anything - you just follow the sabre and apply dps.
Conclusion: Inconvenient, doesn't give the command ship a clear role - stay closer to the hole to apply boosts to everyone? stay near logi? It's a reasonable trade-off but it seems like it gives armor fleets a clear advantage because their fleet is going to be set up to brawl and isn't going to worry about disengaging. I'd say that it's a clear pain in the ass and likely you'll see less command ships being flown in that capacity. It's especially frustrating if you have a rapier or long points because while dictating range and disengagement will be key - getting you command ship in position to boost the right people at the right times is just going to be frustrating especially when people are calling for reps, numbers of enemies, and directing ewar.

Overall, it seems like there's LESS of a reason to bring a command ship in wormhole space than their was before after the changes. Most of those changes are a direct effect of range.

Also, what about people that want to train INTO command ships? That what 18-30km initial command range is just going to be garbage. The only people you'll get training is alts, or people that already have everything they want because otherwise the time to train is too steep (for casual players). When I first trained into my command ship, I was popping T1 links in and knew I was making a difference.

My solution would be - increase the range dramatically. I really don't understand the need for a consumable ammo, but if it's gotta be there whatever. I hope that boosts just show up as one icon on your hud because you already have a bunch if your in pvp/pve as a group (nos, scram, cap transfer, shield transfer/armor transfer) I feel like it could be overload in certain situations.
Kleb Zellock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#509 - 2016-08-30 13:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kleb Zellock
Players demand off-grid boosting be changed.

How players percieve the changes they demanded.
-15k base range. CCP demands brawler doctrine. GTFO light tackle, ewar, and logi anchors
-Love bomb gives weapon timer. CCP demands those brawls on gates, or, sacrifice a booster.
-Love bomb gives no suspect timer. CCP demands hi/lowsec blood offering from solo players.
-No skill reimbursement. CCP demands $$ for skill extractors.
-Rorquals must be on-grid. CCP demands ore prices go up/No Poors.
-Orcas must be on-grid. CCP demands ore prices go up/bow to CODE/No Solo Zones

Despite the seeming copious amount of salt above, I think you are headed in the right direction. My guess is that this will be like FozzieSov: good intentions never optimized. Please roll this out in a usable iteration.

How to make it better:

-A titan should be able to boost a full grid size. Let it scale down from there based on hull size.
-Get rid of the weapon timer. Yes, there will be some abuse cases; but waiting around all the time for you booster to cool down is boring. Continue to loose boosts when you take gates, accel gates, jumps, wormholes and tether/dock.
-If you're going to suspect timer logi I see no reason to not suspect timer boosts.
-Figure out a way to reimburse those skills. You're triple dipping our wallets and that BS. We paid to train them. We shouldn't have to pay to remove them and the re-inject the same character at a loss. Shame on you.
-I'll hold off judgement on this until all the changes are announced.
-Same as above.

-I'll add: if you can make boosts take fuel, you can make cloaks take fuel.

-
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#510 - 2016-08-30 13:27:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
This is a huge improvement in overall balance.

If you want the power offered by a Moros in an operation, you need to put the Moros on grid and at risk.

Now, the same is true for the power offered by a command ship, or the very different type of power offered by a Rorqual. Want the rewards? Take the risks. Don't think the rewards are worth risking expensive ships? Then field a budget alternative, just as you might field Rattlesnakes or Megathrons instead of dreadnoughts if the mission was high risk.

The range numbers should be seriously thought out - I'm not going to comment on whether 15km is right or not without trying it. Even if another number would be better - 15km is the proposed rule for both sides.

_________________________________________

That said, one point: Command ships probably need the capacity to fit more tank (while still boosting) to remain viable. They've been OK in the past with their paper thin tanks but this hasn't actually been a case of good balance, it's been underpowered ships whose weaknesses were masked by overpowered mechanics.

I believe that a command ship which fits command bursts and totally eschews all offense should have comparable tank to a tech 1 battleship (whether this be active armor, active shield, buffer armor, buffer shield or passive shield, as long as you compare like for like).

______________________________________________

Finally, Crimewatch. As much as it pains me to say this, the suspect flag (and not the criminal flag) should be inherited when you boost someone, unless that person is cloaked. I will abuse the hell out of consequence-free boosting, and I will *certainly* abuse the hell out of any criminal flag transferring, but it is a broken mechanic.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#511 - 2016-08-30 13:34:43 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
This is a huge improvement in overall balance.

Now, the same is true for the power offered by a command ship, or the very different type of power offered by a Rorqual. Want the rewards? Take the risks. Don't think the rewards are worth risking expensive ships? Then field a budget alternative, just as you might field Rattlesnakes or Megathrons instead of dreadnoughts if the mission was high risk.
.


I would say that the general argument isn't about bringing this on grid (except in the case of rorqs or orcas) but your code signature at the bottom is a pretty ******* obvious bias on your stance there. More that the proposed range, weapons timer, ammo, doesn't really add anything useful to the ship class and makes it way too limiting. Yes bring that **** on grid, but don't spay command ships like an 8 week old puppy.

Also there's going to be a mining boosting battle cruiser. So, you'll probably not see many orcas at belts. Sorry code bros.
flipfragz
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
WE FORM V0LTA
#512 - 2016-08-30 13:39:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vidork Drako wrote:
Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. Lol

Now a question who will come back again and again until we got an answer :

Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?


Lets us know please. A simple yes or no will be enough.

No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.



In light of your response for the following skills

Leadership
Wing Command
Fleet Command

Are you saying that these skills (be it renamed) will still be required to build a fleet?

So for a basic example to apply the links to the full squad currently you require leadership 5 and a 'Booster' in either Squad/Wing/Fleet Command . Am I correct in saying that with the propsed system you will still need to have a person in squad command with the correct skills to allow the full squad to recieve the 'Boost' but it doesn't require the 'Booster' to be in a command postion?
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#513 - 2016-08-30 13:40:36 UTC
Witchking Angmar wrote:
1) I once caught an offgrid linkship using only dscan and midwarp bookmarks.

2) What would this something else be? The ewar bonus is pretty important for small fast gangs, exactly what the skirmish boosts are meant for.

3) I bet you that existing code for scripts doesn't allow for reload times and they just can't be arsed to change it.


1) Emphasis on "once" I presume. I know D-scan and midwarps work, provided the ship sits put in a midwarp to begin with. There are so many other things in that equation that can and will go wrong. Your case also bases on a stationary target. Anyone who cares for their boosting ship keeps it moving between safespots. I don't say your story is wrong - just irrelevant to the scenario I provided.

2) It's not important for small fast gangs, it's important for everyone who makes it work for their doctrine. Take it away for everyone, and it again evens the playing field. It's just another stack on top of already quite long-reaching disrupt / scramble distances if you take the right ships and modules.

3) You don't know that and they've gotten rid of lots of code already to change something.


Major Trant wrote:
The first minute of the fight is the most important and often determines it's outcome. As for range, the fleet stacks up on the acceleration gate, perfect place to apply the boosts.
Drawing a blank right now. I know you can't dock and use stargates with a weapons timer, but can you use acceleration gates with a weapons timer? It's been so long I last did so Pirate


Arrendis wrote:
IbbnSaifun wrote:
Easily - if you can scan an entire system to locate people real time that means you have FTL capabilities for 2 way systems
I don't see what FTL scanning (and we know the lore has FTL communications capabilities - that's how your clone works) has to do with the radius of boosts.
Both of you didn't quite understand the eve lore with the issues it has.

FTL communication is based on fluid router systems. They use quantum entanglement that causes Atoms to correspond with each other. This limits the bandwidth of communication to, I quote; x bytes per second.
Neural scans at the time of pod breach are used to scan the entire brain and send it to the clone location where a brain inside the grown clone gets formed promptly (and apparently swiftly). The scan is, and I quote again; including every neuron connection between every brain cell

How an instantaneous copy of the brain on this level of depth can be transferred anywhere almost instantaneously is not possible with a mere limitation of "bytes per second", as FTL communication infers the information load to be small. As part of the suspension of disbelief, I'm sure there are bigger fluid routers in similar fashion which allow bigger chunks of data to go through, but with increased latency for communication between systems. I will also make room for just-as-fast routers with higher bandwidth as manufacturing processes improved. Still nowhere near the bandwidth required for a nigh-instantaneous brainscan.

There are many things wrong with EvE lore, even if you take suspension of disbelief into account.
Before you tackle lore, tackle other much more impeding issues.

For example how highsec boosting with a neutral alt will only give a weapons timer and not cause suspect.

Boosting should fall under the same crimewatch categories as remote assistance.
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club
Streamfleet
#514 - 2016-08-30 13:47:21 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

PVP:
Armor WH Brawls: Really no change. We'll be fighting at 0 w/an EOS or Damnation if we're getting boosts (which is rare). Although, being able to 'apply links' before the fleet jumps through the next hole into the fight is an interesting mechanic. It'll let the command ship hold cloak to avoid being the target of nuets and let him get his next set of links off. Although, more likely he'll just uncloak and burn to tackle something.
*conclusion: no real change in gameplay.


changing system removes the buff again.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#515 - 2016-08-30 13:48:18 UTC
I've had some time to mull over the idea of ammo for the boosting modules, and I'm not entirely convinced it will add any meaningful gameplay.

I can understand scripts if they are necessary to make the system work without being a programming nightmare, but having specific ammunition that has little to no impact on cargo space seems like an extra unnecessary step in the scheme of things.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#516 - 2016-08-30 13:49:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Drazz Caylen
Quote:
Drago Misharie: One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.
Delt0r Garsk: Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits.
Drago Misharie: If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt? Illogical.
To offset the reduced yield you have by fitting tank? Roll stop making it sound like you are the only person affected. Everyone will be affected. If you are purely fitted for yield, then it only makes sense to go that way in a hostile environment when you can offset the losses you suffered from not tanking with that extra yield. For some this calculation works. For others, it doesn't.

Again, for all those who didn't get it; everyone will be affected. If something so all-encompassing is touched, then everyone feels it. So you can't even really talk about a nerf to boosts, as everyone is affected evenly. It's not a nerf to you if someone else can pilot that ship better than you. It's just that you have to step up your game in order to remain competitive. The notion that some seem to express as to how some people magically are not affected by the nerfs is beyond me.

Anyway, wait for the damn Industry boosting devblog that comes up next. Gosh.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all
Sitting in station, watching your ship collection spin and Avatar sitting in station while sipping on a beer and talk to your pals while clicking through Project Discovery maps.
What? You only asked for one example.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming
even that is pvp. you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production
You infer they're selling the product instead of using it for themselves, or rather, their corporation. You also infer they would be selling it themselves, and not give it to another trader to take care of it.
Really, both of you circlejerk around. Yes, a lot of eve is PvP. Not all of it is. Yes, there is more to PvP than ship PvP. Yes, there is a chance that PvP is being forced upon you (in other forms than ganking) which increases the level of PvP participation on a statistical figure. But it never goes up to something like "everything" or 95%. Both are ridiculous figures and everyone knows it.
Lots of people also mistake actual happening PvP with possibilities for PvP. You can mitigate tons of risks and exposures with ease.

Exchanges like these grant me great deals of amusement Lol but I prefer if folks have less one-sided views and more agile minds.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#517 - 2016-08-30 13:57:35 UTC
The range is too short, really too short :(

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Lonan O'Labhradha
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#518 - 2016-08-30 14:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lonan O'Labhradha
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but 25 pages is too much to read... The issues I would see are as follows:

Cyclical PANIC:
Not really a criticism but an obvious tactic... Multiple Rorquals periodically re-upping PANIC. If the module burns out, they can probably survive long enough for a refit between cycles, or obviously a fleet of say 12 rorquals can PANIC for at least an hour. This should be plenty of time to get a fleet together, but it's also enough time to bubble all of the Rorquals.

AFK Mining: I'm still not sure this will get the Rorquals out into the belts in Null as the limitation of liability is a big thing in mining. Many null miners don't even use T2 miners, preferring the Procurer, to make less interesting targets so they can AFK mine. I don't think active mining will ever be "fun" which means that you won't have fixed what was broken with it in the first place that makes everyone want to AFK. I can see Rorquals being used heavily in hi-sec and low-sec like this because bubbles aren't an issue.

Speed Differentials:
Many fleets rely on speed and kiting tactics. Command ships are not fast and won't be able to keep up with cruiser fleets very well. A Sleipnir, one of the fastest command ships, has to pulse MWD occasionally to keep up with a Cerberus fleet that has it's MWDs off. During a prolonged kite burn, there's no way for the Command ship to keep in range of the fleet so kiting fleets will need to rely on small booster ships. I'm not sure if this is desired tactic or if you plan to fix it, but it makes Skirmish boosts almost exclusively the realm of small probably shield-tankedships like Command Destroyers. This might result in greater emergence of Command Ship fleets or weird tactics like boost ping bouncing--bounce to fleet boost, bounce to ping, back and forth..., keeping command ship in warp to protect it. You mentioned wanting to up command ship pilot skill, ping bouncing doesn't seem like the direction you were going, but it seems like a direction in which a command ship will be able to successfully apply boosts over a long battle.
Rigeborod
Seven Crafts
#519 - 2016-08-30 14:06:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.


Even if technically you're correct, I would not call it "same type of gameplay". Cause the gameplay will be totally different.

Old boring fleet bonus system had
a) passive bonuses - so I could get extra armor or lock range without any special ship in the fleet. I could get my bonuses during lvl4 missions or whatever;
b) active bonuses - so I could be useful in PvP even if I don't like PvP and try to stay away from it (near the POS force field, for example);
c) Leadership-Wing command-Fleet command skills to enable bonuses for larger fleets.

All these are gone after new system is introduced, so basically I do not need all these skills anymore. That doesn't mean the new system is bad (Actually it's better than the old one), it just changes things so much... And for some players like me all the Leadership skills becomes useless.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#520 - 2016-08-30 14:09:32 UTC
These changes massively affect PVE players, possibly more than pvp players.

I would have preferred lower system wide boosts, while giving on grid boosts a bonus.
so 50% for system wide, 100 to 125% for on grid.

I hope we will get skill point refund.
i have 90m skill points invested into boosting toons that are going from being used all day for the benefit of a 600 man corp, to wondering if i should even sub them anymore.

This changes benefit a few people in lowsec, but screw over a very large group of people elsewhere. This is yet another Nerf to the "home advantage".

This also Buffs cloaky camping. i hope this will also be resolved in the same patch to compensate.