EVE Information Portal

And I'm not defending the 'bug' that permits industrials from providing boosts in a POS, IMHO this has been a longtime issue that could be resolved without going to an active boost state with ammo costs (OK CCP comment on the cap issues cause if you are using ammo then cap costs disappear). I'm just commenting that the changes have a relatively large impact upon miners, and it will impact hi sec miners in a negative way that makes gameplay more costly, less beneficial, and more clicky in return for nothing. And to add insult to injury, CCP has no communicated plan to ameliorate this impact by returning SP or ISK or gametime.

Is anyone able to activate an Improved Forum Posting command burst in this thread?

There is plenty of stuff on the market that can be defined by 'waste'. I guess CCP figured that a "200% bonus to mining crystal bonus would be too powerful, I sort of agree with that assessment, however, I do completely agree there is no point in having crystals become less volatile via link. Either:
A) Remove their damage mechanic all together (Let's face it, most charges don't get damaged); or
B) Directly link their mining bonus % to the crystal's EHP (NO! No repair paste mumbo-jumbo here!) from 100% at 0% damage to say 5% just before it explodes.
Thus making the third M.F. charge worth more than a placeholder for something more..... creative in the future.

One of the hillarious things is most people don't realize you can get your moneys worth out of the crystals if they're "too expensive" for you by unloading them at 95-98% and recycling them at base for nocxium

Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.

Questions:

1: Will the new mining battle cruiser use an existing skill or new one?

2: Are you considering a 3rd rig slot as part of the command ship rebalance?

3: I know its coming in the 3rd blog, but can you give an idea of how extensive the changes to combat boosting ships (command ships in particular) are going to be? Are we talking minor grid/CPU adjustments, major overhauls, or just rebalancing within the ship class?

4: Has the design team planned for players twisting links. By twisting, I mean giving 2 buffs from 1 module by changing ammo types every cycle after max duration skills? Is this the designed intent for high skill play or do you see boosting modules more as utility high slot.

5: Will there be options for players to turn the graphics off/down client side to prevent mass d/c or lag issues with undock/jumping system and massive number of players spamming these visual effects? (Fleet of 70-100 players all spamming links on the Jita undock for example)

6: Roughly in which blog will we hear more about the ammo for boosts? Or will that info only be available on the test server?

Thanks for the blog and info, changes look potentially very impactful.

Yeah, I agree with you on Cybernetics V now basically being worthless and the big increase in extractors, this is a strong money grab from an entire class of players.

This could have been done so much more thoughtfully.

Just take current tanking as examples. Passive protective modules yield lower results for less fiddling. Active protective modules often yield better results but cost more in other areas (fit, skills, ISK or other issues). Now apply that thought process to fleet boosters. If you want a passive boost with longer range, then you can get it but with less effect. If you want an active, more effective boost with shorter range, you could get that too, but with harder fitting or other costs. This current proposal is just a ram the sucker down the throat of everyone as a cookie cutter and pray you don't screw too many of the player base.

The whole sit in a POS with your booster, was always BS, so doing away with that is OK as far as I am concerned.

But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away.

Now watch CCP just ignore input/comments/etc and just ram this sucker

What are the possibilities of making OGB work like RR, in that, the further from the booster you are, the less effective his boosts are? This will not have such a negative inpact on the change amoungst veterans AND as an added bonus will keep Rorqual and capital boosting pilots in the game a little longer because they can sit further out and at least have a chance at redemption after after it hits the fan. On a side note, it adds more tactical gameplay to develop. Should I bump that booster this way or that is only one aspect of the grid. Instead it becomes, will booshing or bumping him be worth my while? FCs will have more work, the bursting ships will require some more coordination, and the leadership skills can be put to use rather than cannon fodder in our resumes. Last but not least, Orca and Rorq pilots will not hold their mining frigates up (it will be up to a transport to keep up instead) :)

-2 cents

So if I read this right, farewell to passive boosts.

Okay now answer why?

Poor gameplay? Because leadership can be remotely applied. Leadership is remotely applied all the time in real life. Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea? Of course not. Furthermore I don't remember Her Maj head of the armed forces of Britain popping across to Helmand to give on grid pep talk. Unlikely any high level command ever see combat zones.

Lack of counter? Sort the mining boosts then, no combat boosts can be applied from a pos/cit.

If CCP don't like leadership skills - remove them, refund the sps, move on.

Better yet, suck it up. Modify the passive skill boosts and introduce the on grid leadership skills as a completely different set of skills within leadership skill tree. You could then have fleets with passive AND active leadership skills plus a whole host of new skills to be trained within that skill group.

When CCP said they were going to improve leadership and make it meaningful I was expecting more, not less gameplay.

I suppose any hope for a command Fortizar is shot to hull now as well.

Carry on, your going to anyway.

This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback:

Gotta admit you are looking a bit like a CCP tool...

Another ship was ALWAYS needed for boosts. It ALWAYS needed to be piloted. So unless you are talking about those who sit on a POS, nothing has changed in terms of ships or pilots. Now I agree that POS sitters were an issue, no risk whatsoever for pretty big gains. If this is a main beef, then this could and should have been resolved long ago via a simple patch. That is a mechanic that was always skewed by big gains for zero risk.

System-wide bonuses have been around a long, long time. Now there is a proposal to NOT do something that has pretty much always been a part of the game. People have built characters and corps around the passive effects that boosters have. The cheapening of these skills and their effects do alter the basic building blocks of the game and characters built over years in the game.

Let's see. I'm particularly interested in mining, not combat, and many of those with major concerns are surrounding the effects upon mining fleets (my example was hi sec). To have to run multiple Orcas in a single system to service a fleet, when the entire premise of that group or corp or whatever was built to just run a single Orca, is a massive issue. This is not a single small gang, or a single fleet, it is more than possible to have 60+km between ships in a single field and to have over 20 fields in a single system. + making me expend ammo to support a function that NEVER had that expense and was never planned to have that expense is yet another negative. Refilling ammo for a mining fleet, yet more clicking and expense for no gameplay advantages.

This is just more and more clicks and expense and removing SP and time spent by players for no gains. Make whatever you want of the combat issues, but this is a HUGE shift and it is a take away vs a bonus. Combat players can take different things away as I am not as sure of the impacts there (although the Strategic Cruisers seem yet again to gain more out of this than the already gimped Command Ships), miners are losing substantially in this proposal.