These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1601 - 2016-10-26 18:22:05 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
have you tried ORE stations?



There are no Ore stations in high sec that I am aware of...... did CCP put them into ORE null only ?


Yes, you have to fly out to Outer Ring to get them, just like with the Orca and Rorqual BPO. It's super easy in a travel Interceptor. If you choose to use anything other than a travel Interceptor, I suggest you fly through F7C. That's the best way for me to kill you.



I'll be sure to wave to you from my nullified/cloaky t3 cruiser. Cool



I hope you lag when you try to activate the cloak and wave at the same time. Twisted

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Alt Inacloak
Emerging Conduit Runners
#1602 - 2016-10-26 18:32:24 UTC
Thogn wrote:
Englisch bleibt für mich eine Fremdsprache. :-) please be aware of that

a) Let us assume for a second - that I have all the skillz for the old system. // Pilots, there should be many, have invested heavily to reach the status. // You want to balance their whatsoever losses as well.

b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7




Actually I think the intent is for all to wait for the booster b4 jumping to next system. Thus limiting the load on the servers....:|

But hey "This is EVE"
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#1603 - 2016-10-26 18:49:30 UTC
Alt Inacloak wrote:
Thogn wrote:
Englisch bleibt für mich eine Fremdsprache. :-) please be aware of that

a) Let us assume for a second - that I have all the skillz for the old system. // Pilots, there should be many, have invested heavily to reach the status. // You want to balance their whatsoever losses as well.

b) Your statement "Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute." Now - that's interesting. Maybe it's only me - but a minute - I mean an entire minute - really, that can be an ultra-long time in New Eden. Think about a moving fleet or an escort-job for something valuable. They do what in future ... they can't jump into the next system ... without leaving their booster behind. To me : a No No - a minute is way too long. My opinion : 30 secs .. will be already tricky ... but could work. Needs more discussion ... o7




Actually I think the intent is for all to wait for the booster b4 jumping to next system. Thus limiting the load on the servers....:|

But hey "This is EVE"



Since the combat boosts are primarily only useful in actual combat, maybe the thought is that evereyone else will have a weapons timer too. If you aren't actively in combat, don't run the boosts - otherwise you are wasting charges and giving yourself a weapons timer.

Also, you should have a chat with hictor pilots who have a weapons timer of one minute from the time their bubble goes down...
Nistromos
Reborn Soul's Inc
#1604 - 2016-10-26 19:05:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tristiana Egivand wrote:
What will happen to the existing warfare links and blueprints? Will you remove them or convert to the corresponding command bursts?


The existing links and their blueprints will indeed be converted into the corresponding command bursts.


Great but will they remain fully researched also?
Jo Jl
Doomheim
#1605 - 2016-10-26 20:07:29 UTC
good call,after I reading and reading ,I missed that point.Thank you
I just don't see the point of the change, you turned mining barges exhumers into the same thing don't they get 2 high slots,reduced the tanking ability,and those 'passive ' bonuses is what made the ship what it was. I cant do any of the end game stuff really but for what I can get into I liked,now its more like 'why am I mining' again.You have however knocked out a whole section of skills I will never have to train. Will you change the name of Fleets to Groupings?i get it the heiracrchy was 'all jackedup" whatever, but it was fairly simple. i don't see any real reason for the change or even an update to these said changes.maybe after the new year when you got something solid and have tested this stuff (yes I know you use sisi for that),you are just needing too much feedback for the product your changing.THen you want refuse a SP refund,well that's low.Back years ago you took,away those skills that helped training,however at that time you also revamped the 'ships and gave them more of a racial category,frigates->"Racial" Frigate,etc.it wasn't a bad trade off for this. Now you don't want to refund the SP,it is like saying train up capital ships to V then taking all capitals from the game or even erasing the skill,granted the skill isn't 'gone' just pointless to have.It's ok to admit you need player to buy the "extractors" .CCP,you would be better just resetting all players to 0 day and take away local. You can still tally up ships destroyed for your stats.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#1606 - 2016-10-26 21:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.

So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.

We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC).
This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.

Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield.

Where is the replacement for the warfare specialist skill bonus? With links coming on grid, the least I expected was that the bonuses would stay the same. I really can't phantom why they are getting nerfed. Tons of fits have been built around links and we are just going to nerf them for no reason even after forcing them on-grid.

As if that isn't enough, you've added this totally unnecessary burst mechanic just so there's more stuff that can go wrong when your coders mess up. Maybe you don't know but forcing us to micromanage links is not fun. Whoever made links off-grid in the first place knew his or her stuff because it's a very boring mechanic that just happens to be important. I totally understand why they need to be on-grid but this is a half arsed solution.

I really don't get how you worked on this for months and months with the CSM and, at the end of the day, all you've managed to do is make it worse. You nerfed it, made it needlessly complex and it's still not fun.
Linn Fangg
Fangg Holdings
#1607 - 2016-10-26 22:08:22 UTC
So, I trained ALL my leadership skills to 5 that took some time, this is supposed to make me happy ? I could of trained so much more with that time.
Patch Chelien
Kaltag and Co.
#1608 - 2016-10-26 22:48:52 UTC
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but does the P.A.N.I.C. module activate a weapons timer so you can't refit another one when the first one burns out?
Dungheap
DHCOx
#1609 - 2016-10-27 00:10:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Penance Toralen wrote:
hello Fozzie

At the moment the burst module has a fixed cycle of 60sec. But the duration of the burst can be easily over 120sec. I potentially see this a source of frustration. Either it is automatic and wasteful of munitions or requires continuous manual cycling. Any thoughts about this?


The effect duration being longer than the module duration is intended, as it allows consistent boosts with some wiggle room. This is helpful both for the players being boosted (not having their stats bounce around too much) and for server load (it's more efficient to refresh an existing buff than to apply a new one).

The munitions are so cheap and small that we expect the optimal course to be simply keeping auto-repeat on and not bothering to micromanage, but for people who really want to the option of micromanaging it is available.


cycle time shorter than duration also keeps the effect active during reloading , and lets you switch charges before the first buff runs out . eg. if you're running a shield hp charge and need to switch to active shielding , you can reload and land bonused reps before the hp bonus runs out .
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1610 - 2016-10-27 03:48:45 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, have another update for you all with a few more changes to the plan.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been giving some thought to the feedback we've received in this thread about the Evasive Maneuvers burst. We agree with the argument that signature radius is an extremely powerful bonus, however we think that converting the burst entirely into something else (like agility) would be a bit too much of a nerf.

So we're adjusting the Evasive Maneuvers burst to provide 6% bonuses to both signature radius and agility, rather than the previous 12% bonus to signature radius. We think this will help ensure that the Evasive Maneuvers burst remains powerful and thematic without being too overpowered.

We are also increasing the strength of the Leadership, Wing Command and Fleet Command range bonuses by 16.7%, 20% and 25% respectively (new values will be 7% per level for Leadership, 6% per level for WC and 5% per level for FC).
This helps boost the value of these skills a fair bit while also extending the max possible burst range by 12.5%.

Finally, the burst strength on the Titans was making them a bit too much of a jack of all trades. We are leaving the ability to operate multiple bursts and the range bonus, but removing the burst strength bonus from titans so that we won't be pushing people towards all-titan fleets. Of course the Titans all have the ability to use their own unique Phenomena Generators (previously known as Titan Effect Generators) which give them their own special capability for influencing the battlefield.

Where is the replacement for the warfare specialist skill bonus? With links coming on grid, the least I expected was that the bonuses would stay the same. I really can't phantom why they are getting nerfed. Tons of fits have been built around links and we are just going to nerf them for no reason even after forcing them on-grid.

As if that isn't enough, you've added this totally unnecessary burst mechanic just so there's more stuff that can go wrong when your coders mess up. Maybe you don't know but forcing us to micromanage links is not fun. Whoever made links off-grid in the first place knew his or her stuff because it's a very boring mechanic that just happens to be important. I totally understand why they need to be on-grid but this is a half arsed solution.

I really don't get how you worked on this for months and months with the CSM and, at the end of the day, all you've managed to do is make it worse. You nerfed it, made it needlessly complex and it's still not fun.
Although, It will achieve CCP's primary goal of the last couple of years - Everything disposable, sorry destructible.

"Fun" is not part of Devs design criteria.

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.
Hulleyn
Immortal's Council
#1611 - 2016-10-27 04:18:06 UTC
Okay, a couple of points. Some new, some restating frustrations/hopes others have voiced.

1. Squad/Wing/Fleet command skills are terrible in this form. They are in many cases useless, and very boring bonuses. I have been trying to find an strong replacement effect with little luck, but please dont leave them this way. Remove them and refund SP before you do this. Many people will extract them anyway.

2. The nerf to skirmish evasive maneuvers is extremely heavy handed, especially when this hasn't even seen singularity yet! Every link is getting a nerf (why?) but this one is extreme. Between this and the loss of passive bonuses from skills/warfare links "defensive" comps took a serious hit. Pure DPS/ DPS tank/ alpha fleets rejoice.

3. The skill requirements to sit in a CS dropped a TON. You said in the dev blog that it would slightly shorten the time. That I was okay with. This makes me feel I wasted 3 moths of training time! In fact, between CS requirements, fleet command being useless, and warfare link specialist V being entirely a waste of SP I can see why so many are calling for SP refunds. Although I don't think that is the solution, I do think these skills have lost their luster and something should change. If it stands as is I know I'll be extracting most of that SP.

4. I would love to see a dev blog on the command ship rebalance. In the last balance pass CS were given 3 links/6 high slots and 4 turrents... Giving us the option to sacrifice DPS for another link or run two links without drawback. It was stated that this was purposeful! Why are we reversing that? Now I am corralled into fitting two links and 4 guns (command rigs not withstanding). I dont like the loss of meaningful choice. I know you are trying to avoid the "6 link ship" but why? They are on grid anyway! Give CSs their 3rd link back!

Please feel free to comment, I'm sure there is more I have to say, including some possible solutions I have to these issues above.

I am genuinely excited for this much needed change to boosting, thanks for all your work CCP. Overall I think this thing is on the right track.
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#1612 - 2016-10-27 09:31:26 UTC
I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.

We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.

Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#1613 - 2016-10-27 10:35:34 UTC
Basil Vulpine wrote:
I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.

We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.

Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit.


one option...

Your BPOs / BPCs will be removed and the new onew ill be available within the "redeem item" system
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1614 - 2016-10-27 11:01:04 UTC
Basil Vulpine wrote:
I've not read through the entire thread but I see there was a recent question about BPOs so I assume it wasn't covered yet.

We know that the high slot command modules remain high slots and just have their BPOs changed across. That's nice and easy.

Command Processors are currently a medium slot item. They become a rig. I assume that means all 4 sizes will exist. What is happening with these BPOs? Do they get split in to 4, each with the same ME / TE as the original? What about BPCs? Also assuming you split them up please consider what will happen if they are currently in cans near the item limit.

There will only be 3 sizes not 4. Currently there are no ships that use large rigs that can also use use links.
Small - Command Destroyers
Medium - T3's, Command Ships
Xlarge - Carriers, Fax's, Supers, Titans

I'm more concerned with what will happen to the command processors I currently own and use on ALL my boosting fits - Simply turning them into rigs, really doesn't cut it, seeing I use the same 4 on various fits and ship types.. I suppose with the need for 3, 4 and 5 link boosters being removed, it is a bit of a mute point.

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.
Alexis Ford
Good Names All Gone
#1615 - 2016-10-27 11:23:37 UTC
it seems you missed the Orca = Large rigs :)
Hark'ma
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1616 - 2016-10-27 13:03:35 UTC
Why can't CCP just stay out of the sandbox like they said they would YEARS ago?
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#1617 - 2016-10-27 15:14:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
There will only be 3 sizes not 4. Currently there are no ships that use large rigs that can also use use links.
Small - Command Destroyers
Medium - T3's, Command Ships
Xlarge - Carriers, Fax's, Supers, Titans


***FIXED***

Small - Command Destroyers
Medium - Combat Battlecruisers, T3s (with subsystem), Command Ships
Large - Orca
X-Large - Carriers, Faxs, Supers, Titans, Rorqual

comming soon: Porpoise with medium rigs as well...
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1618 - 2016-10-27 17:44:04 UTC
Alexis Ford wrote:
it seems you missed the Orca = Large rigs :)


Clearly you just don't know anything about the Orca or mining or fleets because you're arguing with Sgt Ocker, self-appointed expert on all-things Eve.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
#1619 - 2016-10-27 18:31:01 UTC
Hard to read all 81 pages of discussion... so i'll try to ask.
Now we have command ships which have built-in support of 3 command links. With command processors it's possible to fit 7 links into 1 command ship.
After Ascension arrives we are going to have only 2 links bursts fitted into a command ship without different...perversions. Only way to fit more command links bursts supposed to be rigs. Command ships (as all T2 ships) have 2 rig slots, so maximum number of links bursts possible to see fitted into a command ship will be 4.

A question: so you CCP guys want to cut off a possibility to create 5-, 6-, 7-burst command ships? A specialized ship, designed to make bonuses, is going to hold less links bursts than, for example, a Titan (which is definately not a specialized ship for dealing bonuses)?

And you sure have descent arguments why it should be made? Any chance to see the reasons written?

P.S. In case if you sure this all should be made that way, then make at least Tech II rigs with +2 bonus to the number of links bursts fitted. This should be fair enough.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1620 - 2016-10-27 18:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Serge Bussier wrote:
Hard to read all 81 pages of discussion... so i'll try to ask.
Now we have command ships which have built-in support of 3 command links. With command processors it's possible to fit 7 links into 1 command ship.
After Ascension arrives we are going to have only 2 links bursts fitted into a command ship without different...perversions. Only way to fit more command links bursts supposed to be rigs. Command ships (as all T2 ships) have 2 rig slots, so maximum number of links bursts possible to see fitted into a command ship will be 4.

A question: so you CCP guys want to cut off a possibility to create 5-, 6-, 7-burst command ships? A specialized ship, designed to make bonuses, is going to hold less links bursts than, for example, a Titan (which is definately not a specialized ship for dealing bonuses)?

And you sure have descent arguments why it should be made? Any chance to see the reasons written?

P.S. In case if you sure this all should be made that way, then make at least Tech II rigs with +2 bonus to the number of links bursts fitted. This should be fair enough.



Would you really want to build such a ship?

That would almost certainly be classified as a ****-fit in the new boosting paradigm. You'll be on grid, so you'll probably want redundancy for when your boosts get headshot. How many undertanked dedicated boosters do you really want to bring, when you have the option of bringing boosts on otherwise fully combat capable Cdessies/command ships/etc?

Only people that would really benefit, AFAICT, is ELITE HIGH SEC PVPERZ, given the disappointing lack of suspect flagging.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/