These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#1481 - 2016-10-04 18:59:34 UTC
your just released devblog has just increased the damand on heavy water... please add more heavy water to nullsec, remove some ozone
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1482 - 2016-10-04 19:04:22 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Now Life wrote:
just an idea

A rorq is a Capital Industrail Ship , give it 3 fighter bays and bonus when industrial core is active



so are freighters orcas and JFs i don't see your reasoning
To be fair, optimal gameplay for freighters/JFs is to minimize the time spent in space using whatever means available. I'm horribly unfamiliar with Carrier/Fighter DPS but since the Rorq is getting 2k max paper DPS it may already be covered. Also I'll be able to fit that MWD on my orca and an extra mid to fit it. Might actually undock it in the future.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1483 - 2016-10-04 19:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
best part of that blog was seeing orca finally getting an RR and drone bonus mostly the RR


but umm


Quote:


With both skill and role bonuses to mining drone yield, the Porpoise can pull in similar ore volumes to a mining barge



this is something that worries me the porp is not that much more than a barge i'm not sure what its max yeild would be but if its to close to a proc i could see them replacing both procs and retrievers and i don't think that is the goal


EDIT so its only about a 2m/s less than current procs :/
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1484 - 2016-10-04 21:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
That number doesn't account for drone travel time if I'm understanding correctly, but I'm not sure how much that brings it down. The numbers do seem pretty close. Another thing to consider is a proc can have damage drones out as well as being able to mine from strips. Also I'm not certain whether the number accounts for boosts already (I assume it doesn't).
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1485 - 2016-10-04 21:35:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
its not hard to sit on rocks and the time lost going rock to rock is not significant.as for def drones its not hard to just pull them in and swap even then it doesn't give me a reason to use a ret over this thing


lowing it down to around 750-800 i think would be a safer number
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1486 - 2016-10-04 21:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Correct me if the math is way off, but a ret with 2 MLUs and mining drones should pull ~1300 - 1400m^3/min (1080m^3/min without drones). Against a realistic 800m^3/min the only loss is the hold. That also assumes no drone rigs on the Ret and (since the word MAX was used I'm assuming) 2 T2 rigs on the Porp.

A max skilled but 0 MLU Proc should pull ~900 by the same math.

Also I reread the blog and found it stated that the boosts don't work on the drones so that's a non-factor solo as well. The only big draw here is the hold IMHO and since I personally would likely triple tank rig the number should be around 750 - 775 theoretical/650 - 700 realistic yield.

I'll likely get one to try, but I can see myself ultimately sticking with the Proc for cost/benefit.
Fondant Fancy
Violence is the Answer
Wormhole Society
#1487 - 2016-10-05 10:13:33 UTC
Darlings, what have you done?

The scale of the feedback should be sufficient to alert you to how seriously your proposed changes will impact a significant number of loyal (paying) players.

It seems that a major driving force for the changes around the warfare links is the lack of transparency regarding those ships being boosted - so why not just implement the proposed change to make such boosts visible on the ships receiving and giving them? Requiring the boosting ship to be 'on grid' is a far more contentious point and one that really does impact on the rationale of why people trained the skills, bought the ships IN GOOD FAITH and spent valuable time developing their game play.

As for Command ships, the time and expense needed to fly these at their highest skill rating is considerable but (unless I've missed the reply in the 70+ pages on this forum) they will be materially impacted by the changes rendering much of what has been spent utterly wasted (less time to get to level 5 and 3 warfare links reduced to two burst). Unless these ships are to be given additional bonuses to compensate for the loss, then recompense is a legitimate issue which has not been sufficiently addressed, if at all.

EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever. It shouldn't be a surprise that those who have made the investment are the least supportive of the changes whilst, I suspect, those most likely to gain from the changes have little to lose.

Still love you lots, hope you've 'battened down the hatches' for the onset of winter in Iceland.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1488 - 2016-10-05 11:23:21 UTC
Fondant Fancy wrote:


EVE is a game in which planning ahead is a critical aspect of character development but, whilst it's great that you strive to continually improve it, this particular set of proposals risks undermining our confidence that such planning has any value whatsoever.



this point falls flat when at least for half a decade they have been talking about as soon as its feasible they want to put boosts on grid
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#1489 - 2016-10-05 12:37:38 UTC
Seen the new specifics on boosts, look really good, but have one request.

Cancel bonuses on warp and if this is not viable on acceleration gates as with jump gates.

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1490 - 2016-10-05 13:30:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices


making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in
Fuzzy TheBear
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1491 - 2016-10-05 13:38:20 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Look guys-

The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.

...

There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.


Since you mention it ..
Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec.
The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners.
ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. "

I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent
unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****.
Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations.

When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to.

Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) .
I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group .

Of course we're talking mining boosting here.Big smile

And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation.

Thanks for listening ..
/me steps off the soapbox Cool

Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^
Fuzzy

( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )










Galinius Valgani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1492 - 2016-10-05 14:34:03 UTC
If i get the 2 Devblogs right...
I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters?
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#1493 - 2016-10-05 23:25:13 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices


making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in


Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight.

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1494 - 2016-10-06 05:02:22 UTC
Galinius Valgani wrote:
If i get the 2 Devblogs right...
I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters?


Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1495 - 2016-10-06 05:39:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Galinius Valgani wrote:
If i get the 2 Devblogs right...
I could just take a Porpoise fit a Shield and Mining Burst, Load all Boost Ammo Types, Max all Skills and due to be able to reload all 30s( Command Burst Specialist) I may provide all boosts to my fleetmates by rotating Ammo for my Boosters?


Yes, if you wanted to micromanage that much you could.

No they couldn't. They've forgotten the 1 minute cycle time on top of the 30 second reload.
Which means you can't rotate boosts in the same module even with max skills.
Galinius Valgani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1496 - 2016-10-06 06:29:36 UTC
Aahh thats it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Unless they allow it to extend buff duration reach 25% with max Skills/implants/drugs I think I am happy to not have trained FleetCommand yet. :D
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1497 - 2016-10-06 07:53:04 UTC
Fuzzy TheBear wrote:
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Look guys-

The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.

...

There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.


Since you mention it ..
Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec.
The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners.
ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. "

I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent
unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****.
Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations.

When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to.

Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) .
I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group .

Of course we're talking mining boosting here.Big smile

And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation.

Thanks for listening ..
/me steps off the soapbox Cool

Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^
Fuzzy

( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )


It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#1498 - 2016-10-06 08:59:43 UTC
GsyBoy wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices


making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in


Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight.


"Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change.
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#1499 - 2016-10-06 12:37:13 UTC
aldhura wrote:
GsyBoy wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
I would rather go the other way and allow boosts to persist through gates/WH adding more tactical choices


making them stop on warp and accel gates would give an advantage to ppl already in plexs in FW as they could have their booster boost and then warp off where you could not boost and warp in


Disagree, you would see on d scan and a toon in local going criminal. Also proper links would not get in novices where men fight.


"Men" currently with boosting alts sitting safely in a POS. Not sure these "Men" will be quiet as manly after the change.


With the criminal tab, my scanning alt may be of some use after all.....

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1500 - 2016-10-07 10:18:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Fuzzy TheBear wrote:
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Look guys-

The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.

...

There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.


Since you mention it ..
Problem A ) is CODE uses what miners consider a flaw in CONCORD mechanics to pull them away from the belt using suicide ships and kill the mining ship with another .. i mean .. atm , there is nothing to protect the miners from ganking in high sec.
The flaw in Concord mechanics is even on the web in ganking web sites in clear detail on how to use it to kill miners.
ATM there is NO security in hi sec at all. A DEV even mentioned " you accept PVP the moment you undock. "

I mean .. ok .. let's be straight here .. we're manufacturing and mining and making **** to go to markets and have spent
unbelievable time to get mining boosts skills for fleet boosts. We spent years of time getting " skills " up to be able to do this ****.
Making the stuff that you see in the markets takes time and dedication. Resource extraction , mining , PI , research , manufacturing ,material efficiency .. tons of skills and time spent working hard to give you ships , modules , equipment that are needed for PvP and to be able to self sustain mining requirements for equipment. This is all based with the ability to get base materials , resources , extracted . Now every time you get a chance to , for some unknown reason , you come in with changes that have a negative effect on resource extraction when what you want to do is balance the PvP and battle operations.

When you take away the ability for a player to boost the miners in a system while you're docked in a POS you take away the possibility of the player that goes to work to use his account , game time he payed for . It's his business to leave the client opened all day , you also take away the extra yield that the miners can extract . POS boosting for mining actually HELPS keeping the costs of manufacture of ships etc , down for everyone in the game. It WILL have a direct effect on the prices of stuff or if we take the hit ( again ) accounts will be closed , people WILL drop the game because we can't get anywhere ISK wise and they simply aren't interested in going PvP only , like you guys seem to be hellbent to turn the game exclusively to.

Industrialists are fundamental to EVE economy, but changes that are made always end up going against our capacity to keep the market being alive and well. Specially in " high sec " ( which means nothing really ) .
I would simply devide the game into two groups when making changes. Changes that affect the war, pvp side of the game ( i adore going to Spectre Fleet and RvB , so i love that PvP FvF ( fleet versust fleet ) side too , that is 100% fun and i love it ) should not come affect the industrial side automatically and always end up making the game less interresting to our industrial group .

Of course we're talking mining boosting here.Big smile

And so changes that you make to industry should not penalise PvP and changes to PVP should not necessarily affect industry either. Fair is fair .. And last note .. the player always looses somehow in some way. Why not for a change make changes that will actually benefit players ( PvP and Industrials ) positively and give them what they expect of a game .. fun .. and not aggravation.

Thanks for listening ..
/me steps off the soapbox Cool

Signed Your friendly neighborhood carebear ^^
Fuzzy

( here comes the flood of torrential critics and " carebear " insults .. better close this tab and go back to the news ; )


It's not CCP's job to protect AFK income.

You believe highsec ore mining is an AFK venture?
You don't know much about highsec mining..

Most belts in highsec have rocks so small your lucky to get 1 full cycle out of them (can't afk when having to change rocks every 1 min 2 seconds), miner bumping is a common thing, you can't afk when bumpers are around or you end up mining nothing at all.

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.