These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Emma Madullier
Nomads of Republic
Smile 'n' Wave
#561 - 2016-08-30 15:37:03 UTC
Those are very good changes.

I like the idea of 30-120 seconds buffs.
So in FW t1 frigates can get a buff and then enter a novice plex occupied by an enemy fleet. Now the position advantage of the defenders is mitigated by the buff received by the attackers (defenders don't have it in case of t1 frigates). This will bring some new tactics into FW.
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#562 - 2016-08-30 15:39:13 UTC
KhanidLady wrote:


you wont gain anything to make the blob weaker per se. but you gain things like "pulling people out of boost range". which with proper flying can net you kills more easily. also straggler might not have boosts anymore and are easier to kill.


Exactly that, but with 130 sec timers the boost range is just stupidly big..
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#563 - 2016-08-30 15:40:43 UTC
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone!

A few Q&As based on some stuff I'm seeing come up in the thread:

Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts?
A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet

Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch?
A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.

Q: If a ship loses armor links, will they explode?
A: Nope. If it worked like that jumping out of a Wolf-Rayet would be a deathtrap. If you have less than 20% armor remaining and lose a max-bonused Armor Reinforcement burst effect your armor will be set to 0 but your hull won't be damaged in any way. In some cases there may actually be a deficit of armor that must be repaired through before repairers can start bringing you above 0% again, to prevent exploits. This works exactly the same way as the current mechanics if you offline a layered plating module, or leave a fleet with an armored warfare mindlink effect, or jump out of a wolf-rayet wormhole system.

Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid?
A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.

Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills?
A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans.


We've also made some initial adjustments to the numbers thanks to some of your feedback so far.
We're going to tone down the scan res bonus from info bursts since very high levels of scan res can sometimes become degenerate (instalock camps), and buffing some other aspects of the info boosts to compensate.
We're also going to buff the mining links significantly since this transition is going to be especially dramatic for some miners used to the old system. All of these changes have been edited into the dev blog so you can take a look there to see how they fit into the big picture.

Information Command: Sensor Optimization: 18% (+2%) targeting range, 9% (-7%) scan resolution
Information Command: Electronic Hardening: 18% (+2%) sensor strength, 9% (+1%) RSD/WD Resistances

Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Field Enhancement: 30% (+2%) increased range
Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Optimization: 15% (+3%) reduced cycle time and cap use
Mining Foreman: Mining Equipment Preservation: 15% (+3%) reduced mining crystal volitility

T1 Industrial Core (while active): 100% (+50%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active): 200% (+100%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range

Rorqual: 5% (+1%) bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Lonan O'Labhradha
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#564 - 2016-08-30 15:41:49 UTC
Bo Goodwin wrote:
...
I had thought of a 'station-esque' as a workaround, like the 'rorq tower' you mentioned. Such would not be needed if the rang eon boosters were adequate. The very first thought when i heard about all of this was to have a 2AU(total shot in the dark) range on boosters, so they would have to be near, but not 'on-grid'.

I also have been looking into command/logi paths.

--

To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I?


2AU would make the Rorqual content relatively similar to how Off-grid Booster content is today which is "Hunt the Rorq" except that Rorquals are capital ships and you know they're within 2AU of the belt which means one sweep with the scanner will always get you unless the scanner sucks. If Hunt the Rorq is the intended content (and I doubt CCP is interested in that) then they should just be made to be like Command Ships are today--not in a POS or tethered.

When I mine, I crochet. Mining isn't content to me, it's just a way to get isk to buy ships with.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#565 - 2016-08-30 15:44:35 UTC
Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?

A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration.
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club
Streamfleet
#566 - 2016-08-30 15:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: KhanidLady
Thogn wrote:
(( My German is way better than my English ))

I'll try to stay super-calm.

There are many open points with boosting itself - so I'm astonished ... CCP is already jumping.

1.) I think, the basic idea is good. To hide a booster in nowhere - didn't really make sense to me.
2.) I'm positive to some of the changes coming, but here are my issues :

Assumed :
a) you are a single customer with two ( 2 ) hands and two ( 2 ) accounts.
b) you invested a lifetime to come up with one charcter for small gang PvP and another one for support.
The support character is a perfect booster. ( Fleet Command 5 is missing ... Rest is T2-fully there. )
Up to now you could "park" your booster in the skies of New Eden and give continuous boosts to your fleet.
c) if this is no longer valid - and the boosts have only a few kilometers reach on grid - that's interesting - because
d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."
e) Therof follow 2 things :
e1) if fielded - the booster himself will raise more acceptance and
e2) because of d) the booster pilot might be quite busy - right ?

Here comes the joke : because of a)
... it will be impossible to a single customer to run his 2 accounts simultaneously and therefor
... a customer in the above constellation will consolidate his 2 accounts to one. ( at least )

o7

You need more thinking on the issues.


you perfectly explained what is broken with the old system. Thank you for that.
And as a counter point ... let a friend fly the link ship with you. 2 people and you might actually have more fun.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#567 - 2016-08-30 15:46:39 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?

A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration.


Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid?
A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
Irregular Apocalypse
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#568 - 2016-08-30 15:47:34 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch?
A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combatl


Neutral Logi goes suspect, so I really think neutral buffers should go suspect as well for consistency. And while we're at it, bump tacklers should go suspect and not be defended by concord.
Bo Goodwin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2016-08-30 15:52:40 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Thanks Fozzie, With how big grids are now - do you think that a 60km radius (roughly) is large enough for these boost ships? I obviously disagree but hoping you can shed some light on the thought process?

A lot of fights take place on gates, wormholes, stations, but an equal number take place in the wide wide open - where the range is going to become a much bigger consideration.



their thought was 'Let's let gankers kill people because then they will have to buy more ships and we will make more money!! Muahaha!!!'

Counter offer. What about 1500Km base range? Is that small enough for the murderous thugs in your ear, Fozzie?
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#570 - 2016-08-30 15:56:33 UTC
JoAnnaBeth wrote:
perhaps 'Explain' things a bit better for us undereducated folks


The irony of this clause in a massive, unformatted, poorly-punctuated, hard to read, unbroken wall of text is just sublime.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#571 - 2016-08-30 16:03:34 UTC
Thogn wrote:

d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."


Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense.

Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#572 - 2016-08-30 16:06:57 UTC
Irregular Apocalypse wrote:
And while we're at it, bump tacklers should go suspect and not be defended by concord.


And exactly how would that work? You trigger the proximity alert on another ship, you go suspect? Who gets the suspect flag then, the freighter, or the battleship, since they both trigger one another? Wouldn't that just make bumping even more effective, as it immediately means the freighter no longer enjoys CONCORD's protections? What happens when two freighters undock at a similar time and bump one another?
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit
Southern Legion Alliance
#573 - 2016-08-30 16:09:08 UTC
the boosts should be missile like, so you can pick a fleet mate as a target, and then fire the boost beacon at him. then giving the bonus to him and the toons around him. Then you could have the booster sit further off the grid, while still giving bonuses where needed.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#574 - 2016-08-30 16:12:13 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Thogn wrote:

d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."


Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense.

Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.


In small groups, you remove the force multipliers. Boosting ships are a force multiplier. If you can identify the booster, and have a reasonable level of confidence that a)they've only got one or two, and b)you can kill them despite any logi on-field, then it only makes sense to kill them, and kill them quickly. Yes, they've applied their boosts... once. If they can't apply them again, then you've reduced the effectiveness of the rest of the fleet with that one kill.

Obviously, order of priority on force multipliers (including EWAR and Logistics) depends on the fleet composition, and which of them represents the greatest weak point. If the fleet has few logi, each one you kill is a considerable loss of combat effectiveness. OTOH, if they have a lot of logi, you may need to focus on them to be able to kill anything else.

Everything is fluid, and situational. But killing the boosting ship(s) is definitely on the list of 'obvious moves'.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#575 - 2016-08-30 16:12:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Stuff after sifting through 28 pages of material in a timely fashion, discussed it with the dev staff, and came to the forums to politely engage with the playerbase

While this update didn't cover everything I brought up in my patented Wall-O-Text, I am very grateful for the response. The Dev team, and yourself included, are obviously very invested in this update and I appreciate all the work going into making it work, and trying your best to make it as right as you can.
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#576 - 2016-08-30 16:13:27 UTC
Time to toss my two cents into the jar. With the exception of the Rorqual changes these look good to me. The old mechanic was pretty stupid, and moving it on grid while divorcing it from the fleet command structure should make it a lot more interesting. So good work there, while I'm sure it will need some refinement the overall concept looks solid. Now, that out of the way, on to the part I think will be an utter disaster! (I am an eve player after all, just getting three lines of praise out probably made me strain something...)

First, I do mine. I have a personal Rorqual, three maxed out barge characters, and I have quite enjoyed sucking big rocks while sipping some scotch on ice for years. So I'm not pulling this complaint out of nowhere. And I am aware of the line in your dev-blog, "This is just one of the many enhancements that the Rorqual will be getting in November and we’ll be going into more detail about it in the upcoming dev blog."

But still, I think it's important for me to point out the following: If the Rorqual boosts are implemented in their current form without also making the Rorqual more survivable and/ore useful the ship will see a massive drop in use.

The reason for this is a question of security. Requiring players to park a 2.5 billion Isk ship in an anom/belt for five minute increments to increase mining output will, in the vast majority of situations, make no sense. It would take days to see return on the investment, and I don't think a Rorq would be likely to live that long. As a roamer, if the changes go through and the industrial core anchoring mechanic stays as-is, that the moment I see a Rorqual on D-Scan I'm going to get an erection.

At that point I know there is a pinata which is going to be parking for long stretches in a very small number of potential locations. Even if I can't get the thing myself I'm going to note its location and start sneaking around in system; all I need to do is catch it with a minute left on its core ONCE. A Sabre with a cyno, a pre-bookmarked anom, and I have a mega-killmail coming.

Having an invulnerability button that buys a couple minutes for the mining fleet before they get their faces wrecked does nothing to fix this because it relies on the mining fleet having a pool of PvP ready players standing by at all times to save the day. Even in large organizations that is no sure bet; in smaller ones it's likely impossible.

Still, there are quite a number of things you could do to fix this. The blog gives me hope that at least some of them are planned. For the sake of discussion I'm going to list off everything I can think of:

- Make the Rorqual give such a boost to output that it justifies the effort involved in using one with a reasonable degree of security.

- Remove, or greatly reduce, the rooting effect on the industrial core. Ten or fifteen seconds would be workable. A buff to agility would also be in order here.

- Bubble immunity for the Rorq and a high warp core strength so it takes a sizable effort to pin one down (This is highly questionable I know).

- Make mining anoms back into signatures which require probing (ignores problems of lowsec, which is bad).

- Give the Rorqual serious defensive capabilities, in line with a crappy dread oriented towards killing subcaps. Again, make it so getting bubbled is not guaranteed to be fatal without the intervention of fifty other players. A few sub-ideas here:
* Let the capital tractor beams pull in subcaps (hilarious, even if probably broken).
* Massive bonuses to neut range/strength so one can gimp attackers. (Battle Rorqs for capfights anyone?)
* Incredibly stiff tank that is sustainable over time rather than just a one-shot invulnerability.
* Ability to fit capital type RLML swarm launchers to clear tackle (Probably bad, but hilarious again).

- Allow two tiers of bonuses, one that can be run from the safety of a POS that is low, and an on-grid one that is much more powerful for when the pilot feels secure enough to put their baby in a belt.

These are just what I could come up with over my cup of coffee. I'm sure there are others. Just please, whatever you do, don't simply slap the new boost mechanics on the Rorq with a five minute root timer and confine it's use to players with balls of steel/brains of sand. Mining does not pay well enough for that kind of risk.
KhanidLady
White Knight Social Club
Streamfleet
#577 - 2016-08-30 16:17:22 UTC
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Wall of text


you will get the panic button and a local/remote tank roughly close to a FAX. not good enough?
Agul Chith
Department of Magical Law Enforcement
#578 - 2016-08-30 16:17:51 UTC
After seeing the proposed changes I'm less worried. But still have two big concerns...

1. That range... not everyone anchors up and presses F1. Need more range for small gangs who tend to spread out more.

2. The ammo idea is just plain dumb. Please use scripts instead.
Drago Misharie
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#579 - 2016-08-30 16:21:43 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:
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.


Why would you boost with tank when you will get just as much without a tank and without the boosts?
Kleb Zellock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#580 - 2016-08-30 16:25:06 UTC
Quote:
Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid?
A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.


2 years from now you will get a 10% increase to range. Because playtesting.