These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#1141 - 2016-09-11 23:49:10 UTC
I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Luscius Uta
#1142 - 2016-09-12 07:25:52 UTC
Do you plan to make any significant changes to Command ships and their bonuses? In other words, are they going to continue to function as good DPS boats, or will people who don't plan to use command bursts be advised to spend their SP on something else?

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1143 - 2016-09-12 07:28:44 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Do you plan to make any significant changes to Command ships and their bonuses? In other words, are they going to continue to function as good DPS boats, or will people who don't plan to use command bursts be advised to spend their SP on something else?



the better at the very least look back at the tank im going to be a bit irritated if the meta shifts even more in to brick armor because the damnation is the best at taking a hit
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1144 - 2016-09-12 07:33:16 UTC
Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed.
Lavayar
ANGELGARD.
The Initiative.
#1145 - 2016-09-12 08:39:37 UTC
Any comments from CCP about increasing base command burst AoE range?

It's too small. Really. http://i.imgur.com/5MpU15H.png
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1146 - 2016-09-12 08:46:23 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed.



... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1147 - 2016-09-12 08:47:28 UTC
Lavayar wrote:
Any comments from CCP about increasing base command burst AoE range?

It's too small. Really. http://i.imgur.com/5MpU15H.png




looks fine to me... particularly since they want to encourage using more than one
Ginger Naari
Doomheim
#1148 - 2016-09-12 08:47:59 UTC
Synmath Uisen wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The current plans for material requirements for batches of the burst charges are as follows (base values for an unresearched blueprint):
Batch size for all bust charges is 500.

All information command burst charges:
100 units of Helium Isotopes
100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes
300 units of Heavy Water
100 units of Tritanium
100 units of Isogen

All skirmish command burst charges:
100 units of Oxygen Isotopes
100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes
300 units of Heavy Water
100 units of Tritanium
100 units of Isogen

All shield command burst charges:
100 units of Hydrogen Isotopes
100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes
300 units of Heavy Water
100 units of Tritanium
100 units of Isogen

All armor command burst charges:
100 units of Helium Isotopes
100 units of Oxygen Isotopes
300 units of Heavy Water
100 units of Tritanium
100 units of Isogen

All mining foreman burst charges:
500 units of Heavy Water
500 units of Tritanium
500 units of Isogen

This means that the cost of an individual burst charge should land between 200 and 400 isk, with the mining burst charges costing a bit less than the combat ones.



So this is very affordable, and can be worked well, 5 hours per load of ammo, no issues there decent amount of time.

here is my next big question and issue, it has to do with mining boosts. i know you say that the blog for it is coming out soon, but to be honest, I'm watching the numbers and seeing my mining productivity dropping like a rock, and I'm very very nervous about the future state of mining.

Have you given thought to having the mining boots just have longer range period? 15km is too small to support even the smallest of null fleets, and the Idea of having to put a 500 mil (projected and speculation) battle cruiser on the filed to even consider getting boosts is really hampering any production we would see.

This on top of the major changes (I read as Nerfs - blog about Ore revamp) to our main mining ships, and watching the current productivity drop in a major way. I would like to feel that I'm not going to be working harder and harder to make even the slightest Isk.

At this point, I could see mineral prices double after these changes, as Null/low mining is getting completely hammered with these Nerfs.

Again I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but Mining is what I enjoy, I love the Industry aspect of the game, but I get very sensitive at how much my profits are being cut by the sheer amount of productivity loss.



What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.

It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1149 - 2016-09-12 08:51:32 UTC
Ginger Naari wrote:




What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.

It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.



you just answered your own question
MrB99
Astral Mining
Astral Industries
#1150 - 2016-09-12 09:05:57 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Ginger Naari wrote:




What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.

It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.



you just answered your own question


It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled.

I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1151 - 2016-09-12 09:41:18 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?


Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1152 - 2016-09-12 09:50:35 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?


Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.



why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1153 - 2016-09-12 09:54:05 UTC
MrB99 wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Ginger Naari wrote:




What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.

It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.



you just answered your own question


It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled.

I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel.


The intent for nullsec production is that the majority of materials by volume to be able to be sourced locally, but that some trade should still be required (mostly in specialty and lower volume items).

The fuel for citadels fall into the bulk category, while the materials for building these burst charges are expected to be a smaller volume.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1154 - 2016-09-12 09:57:03 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?


Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.



why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now


The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1155 - 2016-09-12 10:05:19 UTC
Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..

What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?

What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?

What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1156 - 2016-09-12 10:07:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.


ah over looked that it was cut in half. well it feels like this is going to be hard on groups that use these for E-war particularly considering you normally have them spread out but i suppose its not much of an issue when everyone has the same disadvantage
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1157 - 2016-09-12 10:08:43 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..

What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?

What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?

What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?



the existing implants still boost the mod


sucks to be us (all but mining was moved to a boost)

they now add range


MrB99
Astral Mining
Astral Industries
#1158 - 2016-09-12 10:56:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up


Automating transfer of ore from mining ship to command ship.

Compression on the fly in mining ships, or the command ship.

Improve performance of mining drones to make them more compelling to use.

Ability to tractor rocks to your mining group's location. (i.e. to reduce slowboating of bonus-group)

Ability to get yield from all the too-small-to-target rocks that are now eye candy yet mysteriously disappear when a belt is mined out.

Make visible / scannable "hidden" mining belts that are in combat anomalies or mission spaces.

Modify frequency of gas anomalies spawning, or ice anomalies respawning.

Proximity alarm of hostiles.

Spawning of "bonus" rocks in a belt.

Animation improvement - rock size scales based on # of remaining units to mine

Killmarks for # of rocks mined.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1159 - 2016-09-12 11:00:24 UTC
... those are some pretty crazy ideas for a fleet boost
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1160 - 2016-09-12 11:06:26 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed.



... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced

Actually it's an even better reason to give all ships DPS caps Citadel like to prevent instant volleying, and provide squad & wing commanders a larger role in combats.
Obviously this then means a lower logi cap gets introduced.
Both of which introduce far more skill into the chain of command, not just needing one good FC but also a bunch of good sub commanders to really make a fleet excellent.
And then this whole issue of headshots, & instant alpha of boosters goes away, and everyone gets more fun in a fight.