These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ginger Naari
Doomheim
#1421 - 2016-09-23 08:26:49 UTC
Laurens Punani wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i know plenty of people mine w/o boosts all over eve let alone max boosts



as for the prices they stated citadels would be by far the most expensive intended to be used as HQs and markets


most recent prices puts the large at about 1/2 price of a fort



so thats 40 billion for the fleet/cita/drilling platform than :D

I bet there is noone who makes money while mining without boosts. Give me an example of how to make 40 million an hour (easyly made while ratting in a cruiser) without boosts.




You really need to realise something..

Not everyone plays just to chase isk, if that's what you do then you can't do much else in game...I do a bit of everything, it keeps the game fresh.

I mine, and enjoy it, maybe the secret is that I have never done it to plex, also, I make isk out of it even without boosts.

Yes boosts are nice to have, maybe we should all mine today without the Rorq boosts and get used to it (just in case)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1422 - 2016-09-23 08:31:58 UTC
O.o since these are going to take a more active role can we get drugs for the boosters O.o
h4kun4
Gang Bang Pandas
#1423 - 2016-09-23 10:56:04 UTC  |  Edited by: h4kun4
I still think this change is neccessary, altough i used and still use offgrid boosting like a madman, in whatever activity i do. I belive it is very overpowered now, i have virtually no threat for my booster T3. It is already hard to scan down a specially fit Loki or Proteus and can only be achieved by a skilled pilot with implants, and even if they scan me down, I burn with an Afterburner at all times, so even if the enemies land an me, they will likely be out of normal point range off me and i can just cloak and warp off before they reach me as long as i notice them, cloakies are virtually pointless to try to catch a boosting T3 because of limited cloaked speed and decloak lock delay.

About the new mechnics:
The base ranges are a bit tight, I would raise them all by 25%.

About the Rorquals in Astrahus:
The smaller booster ships (Porpoise and Orca) will be viable to use too, maybe even more than the Rorqal, since parking a Rorqual in a belt with 5 hulks seems like a horrible idea, look at the Numbers and come again when you did, thank you.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1424 - 2016-09-24 06:51:33 UTC
... mining drone velocity boost?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1425 - 2016-09-25 04:35:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
what CCP needs to do is a pass on the CBCs they were skipped when they did the T1 BCs they should have more tank (even shield CBCs are losing tank now that the processor is a rig) Would be nice if the caldari/amarr were just bricks some tank and spank then gal/minm just a bit less tanky but fast enough to keep pace with ABCs. the current hulls currently have these themes just not to a level that makes them a viable choice (well i'm sure we will still see sleipnir out of all of them probably the most viable)



EDIT:

as well the damnation probably doesn't need much more tank but it could use a bit of DPS if it want to be picked over a t3


One might note that there are two Command Ships for each race. There's space for a "tanky" minmatar and a "fast" amarr CS.
Something I always thought would be interesting;

Fixing - Changing; Tanking bonuses on Command ships.
Right now we have 2 races with resist bonus and 2 with active bonus.

Why not 1 from each race with a resist bonus and the other with an active tank bonus.

This would open up more choice with the upcoming on grid boosting - A Tanky Minmatar (Claymore) with resist bonus and a Fast/er Amarr (Absolution) with active bonus, a relatively small but meaningful change.

Then for the other 2, an Astarte with resist bonus, Vulture with active.

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
#1426 - 2016-09-25 04:44:12 UTC
Again the problem comes in where racial flavors favor one type over the other so that command ship will pull ahead for that race leaving the other one as lack luster.


Basically do to racial flavor the minm active tank will simply be better than tbf Caldari one when it comes to tanking. So if active tank is what you want out of your ship you will train minmatar. At the same time the Caldari buffer boat will tank better than the active rep one
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1427 - 2016-09-25 06:12:24 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Again the problem comes in where racial flavors favor one type over the other so that command ship will pull ahead for that race leaving the other one as lack luster.


Basically do to racial flavor the minm active tank will simply be better than tbf Caldari one when it comes to tanking. So if active tank is what you want out of your ship you will train minmatar. At the same time the Caldari buffer boat will tank better than the active rep one

I agree but that's where Devs could use their skills and add something extra to make using one over the other a viable choice, depending on "how" it is to be used.

Ok so minmatar active would outshine Caldari Active in tanking (they have smaller sig, are faster and have better agility) - Give the Caldari a speed buff, increase agility or, my choice, be really daring and give the Vulture a 1% role bonus to hybrid turret damage application.

Give each CS a (small) role bonus to missiles, lasers, etc (drone speed or similar for the Eos), fleets can then make a choice as to which booster/s they bring to a fight, depending on what ship types are in fleet.
It also gives the class an extra option / advantage over T3's.

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
#1428 - 2016-09-25 08:17:37 UTC
i would rather they play to the strengths of their race (similar to blops) rather than be altered to just be slightly different clones
Jasper Binchiette
The church of Evil Justice
Brothers of Tangra
#1429 - 2016-09-25 11:13:43 UTC
I don't post in forums normally but will make an exception for this.

These changes sound great for the Gankers and really bad for the miners who are the backbone of Eve. I fear this will really destroy the game. I'm not an expert but I know people who are. It appears that no one I've spoken to will want to take their Rorquals out to the belts as it will be suicide. As for the whole timed invulnerably, great, give the hot droppers 5 mins to bring in their fleet. This seems to be the common opinion from what I can work out. I hope the devs are reading all these posts and listening to people and taking on board what is being said. Definitely quite concerned about some of the coming changes...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1430 - 2016-09-25 11:46:33 UTC
and why exactly are you not using the 5 min to bring your fleet? and pro tip it is possible to mine w/o a rorq if you are to afraid to use it.
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#1431 - 2016-09-26 12:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Jasper Binchiette wrote:

These changes sound great for the Gankers and really bad for the miners who are the backbone of Eve. I fear this will really destroy the game. .



psst, ccp can revert all the changes made to castrate rat killers if you are fearing doom and gloom. The reprocessing nerf, the drone poop loot nerf.....it can all be rolled back if mineral markets get that bad. We rat killers held up the markets good before. we get our mins back in mission loot we can again. We'd gladly fill this void again .



That and tinfoil hat is telling me some Russian and friends crew(s) still have stockpiles from the good old days of mineral bearing drones in bot....err drone space. its been a few years i know, some of them botters were really busy farmers. That stuff can't all be used up.
no form
Pink Pounders
#1432 - 2016-09-27 14:24:12 UTC
Although I get the need to remove off-grid boosting but this is a much more extreme change than I imagined.

I think my main concern is for the casual player in High-Sec. Its bad enough for them already with the constant War Decs, bypassing/almost non existent Concord. There is a lot of solo players out there who rely on boosting as some kind of defense and now they will have to not only be on field but also constantly active on 2/3 characters.

I've been playing on grid passive boosting for quite some time now, but I don't think this new mechanic will make it viable at all. I've always supported CCP by paying for my accounts, but I can see me cancelling my other two now.

I'm not salty its just the way it is as there are other games to play after all. It's just a shame after so many years and CCP not addressing the main reasons why most people don't stick with this game.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1433 - 2016-09-27 20:10:11 UTC
no form wrote:
Although I get the need to remove off-grid boosting but this is a much more extreme change than I imagined.

I think my main concern is for the casual player in High-Sec. Its bad enough for them already with the constant War Decs, bypassing/almost non existent Concord. There is a lot of solo players out there who rely on boosting as some kind of defense and now they will have to not only be on field but also constantly active on 2/3 characters.

I've been playing on grid passive boosting for quite some time now, but I don't think this new mechanic will make it viable at all. I've always supported CCP by paying for my accounts, but I can see me cancelling my other two now.

I'm not salty its just the way it is as there are other games to play after all. It's just a shame after so many years and CCP not addressing the main reasons why most people don't stick with this game.
This seems like a strange claim considering the number of players believe to have only a single account. Additionally, when it comes to highsec solo players, most draw greater benefit from using the second account to enhance whatever their activity is directly rather than have it off grid boosting. If it's players like that you're claiming to watch out for or drop accounts because of then allow rest assured no one needs the gesture as we're likely the least affected group.

For what it's worth, I never trained any boosters until the news that on grid boosting was coming because of some group activities that will likely desire that role in the near future.
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
#1434 - 2016-09-27 20:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariko Musashi Hareka
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok let's answer some other questions and update the plan a bit more!

After some concerns raised about the strength of Command Destroyer boosts for smaller/faster fleets, we've decided to bump the magnitude of the burst effect strength bonuses on the Command Destroyers and the Porpoise back up to 2% per level.
We're also going to add a 1% per level Shield Command Burst strength bonus to the Orca, as a smaller mirror of the bonus on the Rorqual.

We're taking the concerns about the strength of the Evasive Maneuvers link into heavy consideration. We completely agree that the link is quite powerful. However the switch to AoE is already a very consequential change for this link and some of the proposals floating around (such as switching it to agility) would be a quite significant nerf to the link. We're not 100% sure that such a change is warranted at this time. We have some alternatives in mind in case we need to change the link further, but we'll probably wait at least until we get some playtesting before making further changes in this particular area.

We've been seeing some questions about whether you'll be able to set your command burst to auto-cycle (largely due to the fact I used the wording "reactivation delay" in the dev blog). We had needed to do a bit more technical investigation before conclusively answering this, but we're now happy to say that players will be free to set their command bursts to auto-cycle or to manually cycle, just like most modules.

Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. 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.

As for test servers, we plan to start mass testing of the new bursts for performance profiling soon (probably within the next two weeks) and the burst modules will be available in a usable state on sisi starting at that time. The new bursts are actually working just fine (other than some of the ship bonuses not being finished yet) on our internal servers right now but we need to focus SISI on testing the earlier releases (such as the release next week) so at the moment we can't put that build on sisi quite yet. We'll keep you posted as we get closer.

Like I said above, we're working hard on the next dev blog (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) and we hope to get that out to you all soon.
Thanks everyone for the continued feedback!


Ok so this new ghost fitting is nice and all but I could care less about that where is the Rorqual changes for Singularity?
you announced the Rorqual well in advance of this ghost fitting thing yet it makes it to Sisi first? wtf? Seriously seems like you all are trying to get us to focus on something else instead of Rorqual changes.
You said probably "within" two weeks well its now going on more then 2 weeks so what gives
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1435 - 2016-09-27 21:31:05 UTC
^ This.

Keep the mining boosts as they currently are and limit them solely to the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I never saw a need for mining preservation since crystals are easily made and relatively inexpensive on the market. Any miner worth his skill always has spare crystals and BPO's/BPC's to make more.


As for the mining boosts, you could easily treat them the same as you treat the T2 cloak and a bomber, and it solves that problem.


And we still need more info on the Rorqual changes ..... hint hint.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1436 - 2016-09-28 02:56:02 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
^ This.

Keep the mining boosts as they currently are and limit them solely to the Porpoise, Orca, and Rorqual. I never saw a need for mining preservation since crystals are easily made and relatively inexpensive on the market. Any miner worth his skill always has spare crystals and BPO's/BPC's to make more.


As for the mining boosts, you could easily treat them the same as you treat the T2 cloak and a bomber, and it solves that problem.


And we still need more info on the Rorqual changes ..... hint hint.

Well no. It doesn't solve the issue of getting boosts risklessly at all. It just makes it such that the only platforms you could use for that purpose were the same ones you'd be using anyways.

So literally no change save another hull to do the exact same thing (which also renders the porpoise obsolete with the option of the no risk orca).
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
#1437 - 2016-09-28 06:26:14 UTC
Let me see if I understand whats happening.

Miner flying a Exhumer, Booster in an Orca. Max Skills, implants...

Yield no longer boosted 15%

Cycle Time minimally reduced. (Not sure I did the math right on that. Lotta boosts and bonuses to figure.)

Have to be on grid, within range for the boost to take effect. Lasts for a minute, up to just over 2 minutes depending on skills, implants, ship.

Is this right? It will reduce my yield, but also reduce cycle time to compensate? At least as long as the booster is on grid?
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1438 - 2016-09-28 14:27:39 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Well no. It doesn't solve the issue of getting boosts risklessly at all. It just makes it such that the only platforms you could use for that purpose were the same ones you'd be using anyways.

So literally no change save another hull to do the exact same thing (which also renders the porpoise obsolete with the option of the no risk orca).




Mining is a different style of game play, which is what really surprises me that a lot of people cannot grasp ... including the devs.

If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it.


For the Orca .... this ship needs a lot of love for this change and I don't see it coming at all, except in the form of another ship (the Porpoise) which doesn't address the concerns the mining community is posting.

Fly an Orca on a regular basis and you'll see how much risk there is with an 800 million ISK giant flying bath tub, that needs another 500 million in fittings, has minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and it's still a giant flying bath tub.

Meanwhile, no one wants to discuss how to make the Orca able to defend itself if it's going to be sitting in a mining anom or belt, but we get the Porpoise instead? This doesn't make any sense at all.

The devs still haven't really addressed the "shooting" of bursts/boosts and not going suspect. Again, this doesn't make any sense because if you're going to replace one system of providing boosts with another that now provides bursts you shouldn't have to worry about losing a 1.5 billion ISK fitted Orca to a suspect timer. This flips the "no risk/all reward" to "all risk/minimal reward".

Let's have an adult discussion about this since CCP made it so we could boost from a POS, and now they want to change the way the game is played but won't fix the booster ships.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1439 - 2016-09-28 14:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Balder Verdandi wrote:

If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it.



O.o you're getting links on a nightmare teach me what you know!


and the outrage of ships safly boosting came from combat links its been all over the forums for years


as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something


and i love how you keep bringing up the suspect timer thing even though CCP stated that at the moment they are not planning to add any criminal timer to them
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
#1440 - 2016-09-28 15:11:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ollyander
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something



Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out?