These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Defentora Thentax
Derpyversity
#941 - 2016-09-03 04:11:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Defentora Thentax wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Defentora Thentax wrote:
HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.

this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.

indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to.



I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels



ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool


not currently where your rorq is tucked under the shield of a POS


who cares about the rorq, why worry about a rorq when u can kill shiny ratting bs's and carriers? ohhhh i see, those propose a RISK lets not shoot those then because its a RISK so you want to kill shiny indy ships instead i see
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#942 - 2016-09-03 04:21:20 UTC
BWAHAHAHA nope- they just warp off before our scout's grid loads. That's why.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#943 - 2016-09-03 04:33:19 UTC
Defentora Thentax wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Defentora Thentax wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Defentora Thentax wrote:
HERE'S THE DEAL, many of us, probably most of us, have trained leadership skills only to trickle boost to our fleet if we need to. that mechanic is being removed so we should be refunded the sp. plain and simple there is no argument for that period. the other thing is miners/ indy corps out in null specifically are ALWAYS at risk when trying to do there indy thing, billions lost every month in exumers and T1 mining barges, jet cans exploded, PI haulers killed loaded to the brim, JF's killed all the time, ratting carriers, noctice's being used to make rigs. to when i see post about the 0risk to some or 100% risk post, its a load of pvper elitist bullshit that just want shiny KM's. you get them already out in renter space.

this is a great change for combat links i agree even though i use them off grid for pve fun we have in cruisers and such i still agree.

indy links should be preserved off grid, as at its core indy is a pve driven profession. kill my mining ships and indy haulers thats fine been doing it for years, at least leave us off grid boost's there is no reason not to.



I'm sorry but only poorly set up groups are at risk in null. most are safely behind blue eyes (no pun intended) protected snugly by intel channels



ur right, but that doesnt mean were not at risk, were always at risk regaurdless of intel channels dont be a fool


not currently where your rorq is tucked under the shield of a POS


who cares about the rorq, why worry about a rorq when u can kill shiny ratting bs's and carriers? ohhhh i see, those propose a RISK lets not shoot those then because its a RISK so you want to kill shiny indy ships instead i see


... beacause no one ever goes to shoot ratters..... killing ratting carriers sure is not a thing
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#944 - 2016-09-03 05:49:51 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"

Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.


Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.



considering it went from 0 risk to having risk



"Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#945 - 2016-09-03 06:03:15 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"

Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.


Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.



considering it went from 0 risk to having risk



"Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.


.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#946 - 2016-09-03 06:14:32 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
This discussion is running in circles... plenty of people already pointed out the current broken "get benefits for zero risk" mechanic of possed boosts; I have yet to see a response addressing that argument from a miner other than "this is how miners do things for I.don't.know.how.long and we are (for some reason) entitled to it!"

Anyone feel free to link me a post I might have missed reading in this thread addressing it.


Miners have repeatedly pointed out the risk vs. reward problem of forcing the Rorqual on to the field - the risk becomes ridiculously high versus the reward.



considering it went from 0 risk to having risk



"Having risk" isn't the point, it's the level of risk that's unreasonable compared to the benefit.


.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change


Yes, that's obvious and you claiming to know "several" that will use it is an anecdotal troll.

For real miners who understand risk management, putting the Rorq in an anom or belt as proposed is ludicrous.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#947 - 2016-09-03 06:23:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Resa Moon wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


.... if you see the risk as to high then don't use the rorqual that is your choice. But I already know of several who do plan to use it and are in love with the buff the boosts will be getting with this change


Yes, that's obvious and you claiming to know "several" that will use it is an anecdotal troll.

For real miners who understand risk management, putting the Rorq in an anom or belt as proposed is ludicrous.



then why do i find them there so often.... wishing desperately i had dps online.

and i do know quit a few people excited over this change on this character i have some how wound up helping a bunch of miners and none of them can wait to get their hands on the extra mining buff. only thing they are not happy about is the 10% yield buff that went poof.


as for the risk back in my own null mining days i can remember days on end mining in fleets for hours and not getting more than 3-4 sightings within 3 jumps. Were there times hostiles did show up in system? yes ofc but there were always plenty of us that had been mining able to dock up reship pew pew gf gf and go back about our day
panosp
MALAKOMAGNITES
#948 - 2016-09-03 09:49:47 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.


please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion.

Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K

Me personally have max trained leadreship skills, was a rorqual boost pilot the old days but today all those skills are useless because i don't use them at all. So i don't care if the CCP change this

I only care that with the changes they bring in game last years and the upcoming ones, lead the old pleyters to leave the game

And the reason for this is that don't want them in game because they help the new players and this is not good for they income

They need new players that can spend money and play for few months pay for plex to get the stuff they need and leave.

Old players for CCP is just an oveload for the servers

the only reason i still play EVE last years are the friends i made in this game and not the game

Fozzie keep the good work
Lugh Crow-Slave
#949 - 2016-09-03 09:54:28 UTC
panosp wrote:
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.


please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion.

Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K



good thing he said extract and sell not extract and inject


the skill has not been changed enough to warrant a refund even if some people will no longer use it.
Miss Jestz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#950 - 2016-09-03 10:35:00 UTC
Will the passive boosting be disabled at the same time the new mods are available or will we have some sort of transition period for us to adapt and search for the best on-grid booster fit ?
Kilostream
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#951 - 2016-09-03 11:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kilostream
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Let the neutral boosting alt salt flow.


This doesn't look like a nerf to be gloated over to me - it looks more like Eve's SWG moment. And you're so, so wrong if you think OGB alts are all it will affect.

I was expecting the command modules to be nerfed so they worked only on grid, but taking away the skill bonuses changes the game colossally because now those SP only work in ships that can also fit command modules.
I won't say I feel I wasted time training those skills, because I've used them on a daily basis for over a decade, but the fact that they (and the mind link implants) are now useless when they were a bread-and-butter essential before seems too drastic a club to batter everyone with, when the perceived 'problem' was the cloaky t3 alt.

I guess it'll be just as sh1t for everyone, but that doesn't mean sh1tty changes are okay! Couldn't you have 'fixed' ewar drones or kitsuney/falcony things instead, since they are actually broken?!
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#952 - 2016-09-03 12:48:29 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
panosp wrote:
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.


please don't say again that the SP extracting is an oprion.

Meybe is an option to you but to the old players is not, because can extract 500K Sp and inject 150K



good thing he said extract and sell not extract and inject


the skill has not been changed enough to warrant a refund even if some people will no longer use it.


You're saying that changing Wing Commander and Fleet Commander from skills that allow you to pass boosts to up to 51 pilots and 255 pilots (including yourself) while flying ANY sort of ship, including non-boosting ships...

... to skills that require you to be in a boosting ship to work and only slightly increase your boost range any further than leadership 5 allows... isn't much of a change?

I dunno, seem like apples and oranges to me. Pretty big changes for pretty long-ass skills to train.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#953 - 2016-09-03 12:53:21 UTC
I said it was not enough of a change. the change to carriers was far more drastic and not a refund to be found
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#954 - 2016-09-03 13:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylvia Kildare
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I said it was not enough of a change. the change to carriers was far more drastic and not a refund to be found


You mean the removal of their ability to triage and remote rep well?

But that ability was added to another ship that is unlocked and flown using the very same skill that carrier pilots already had to know to be in carriers, and they also allowed people to convert their carrier(s) to that new ship by leaving a triage module fitted to it/them...

... whereas there is nothing, no utility at all, from the WC and FC skills that people who don't fly booster ships are going to have in the future. At least with how the November changes are planned at present. At present, WC/FC are useful skills without ever training cmd DDs, cmd ships, indy boosters, and capitals... but in the future, they will ONLY be useful skills if you train into those specific classes of ships.

I have 3 accts I play with on a daily basis and their leadership/WC/FC levels are presently 5/3/0, 3/0/0, and 5/5/3 (booster pilot)... and I do plan on training the first two into command ships eventually, so even with the new uses for WC/FC, I'll likely want to at least train WC 5 and maybe FC 3 to match up with the 3rd acct (the booster).... and yet I personally support at least WC/FC reimbursement (if not leadership as well), b/c I can put myself into the shoes of those people who aren't flying boosting ships and never want to or at least think they never want to (people are always free to change their minds, ofc).
Lugh Crow-Slave
#955 - 2016-09-03 13:17:34 UTC
no i mean the entire use of dps carriers was changed to the point that they no longer fly the same way. if i meant the change to triage i would have maid not of it
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#956 - 2016-09-03 13:59:31 UTC
Kilostream wrote:
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Let the neutral boosting alt salt flow.


This doesn't look like a nerf to be gloated over to me - it looks more like Eve's SWG moment...


Every major gameplay change since the nanonerf in 2006 has been EVE's "SWG moment..."

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Lugh Crow-Slave
#957 - 2016-09-03 14:02:05 UTC
im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#958 - 2016-09-03 16:16:16 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#959 - 2016-09-03 16:19:01 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
im to old for the young kids lingo what is "SWG"

SWG = Star Wars Galaxies, an MMO started in 2003. SOE Management wasn't satisfied with the sub numbers and wanted to make the game more "starwarsy" to attract a lot more customers. What Kilostream is referring to were actually 2 big changes, only a few months apart, with the second one being the actual neckbreaker for SWG:

1. the Combat Upgrade which completely revamped how combat worked, including changing from the indirect control of weapons (very much like in EVE) to a direct one (manual targeting). This was already disliked by many players

2. the so called NGE - New Game Enhancements:
Wikipedia wrote:
One week after this release the entire character development process was changed in the so-called New Game Enhancements (NGE). Major changes included the reduction and simplification of professions, simplification of gameplay mechanics, and Jedi becoming a starting profession. This led to a number of players demanding their money back for the expansion. After a week or two of protests Sony offered refunds to anyone who asked for it. Many player towns became ghost towns due to the reaction of long term players who decided to depart en masse.

Needless to say that the droves of new customers never came. All in all a very sad story as the game was amazing prior to the Combat Upgrade.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !

Lugh Crow-Slave
#960 - 2016-09-03 16:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
how does that compute to a change the community has been requesting for nearly a decade?


if ever a hyperbolic example has been used this would be it