These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hulleyn
Immortal's Council
#1621 - 2016-10-27 22:35:52 UTC
Serge Bussier wrote:


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.


I completely agree with the elimination of 6/7 burst fits. However...
If CSs were given back the 3 bursts allowed the max bursts they could fit with rigs would be 5. I still think I like this better, not because I would ever use such a fit, but because without rigs I want to have to make a choice between 3 bursts for max fleet assist or a full rack or guns. As it stands EVERY CS will fit a full rack of guns and two bursts. Only fail-fits will use a rig slot and drop a gun just for that 3rd burst. No question. And that is boring.
Brea Nah
Negative Transversal
#1622 - 2016-10-28 00:09:19 UTC
A massive overhaul of this magnitude should come with an SP reimbursement.
The core game play functionality of how these modules work and the bonus changes are all very different. In addition, the skill requirements to use T2 are dramatically reduced. In this current iteration I would not have maxed every leadership skill to 5 if I didn't need to in order to use T2 links.

Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

At a minimum I feel they should at least reimburse skill levels 2-5 on the specialty skills. But, I think they should reimburse the entire leadership SP pool for all players. Any other MMO would do this for talent/skill trees.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1623 - 2016-10-28 00:42:42 UTC
Brea Nah wrote:

Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.


While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people.

As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it.

It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Brea Nah
Negative Transversal
#1624 - 2016-10-28 00:57:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:

Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.


While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people.

As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it.

It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.


And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.

I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.

I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1625 - 2016-10-28 01:14:52 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Brea Nah wrote:


And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.

I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.


It's really simple criteria.

If the skill still does something, it doesn't get reimbursed.

The skill has to be removed wholesale for reimbursement to occur, such as with the learning skills that used to exist.

Quote:
I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.


There have been hefty overhauls of mechanics before. Fozzie Sov, Jump Fatigue, Crius industry, Odyssey scanning/hacking, etc.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Brea Nah
Negative Transversal
#1626 - 2016-10-28 01:52:51 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

It's really simple criteria.

If the skill still does something, it doesn't get reimbursed.

The skill has to be removed wholesale for reimbursement to occur, such as with the learning skills that used to exist.


This is a poor policy if it is accurate. Just because something is a policy doesn't mean it is right. Policy doesn't change until it becomes questioned.



SurrenderMonkey wrote:

There have been hefty overhauls of mechanics before. Fozzie Sov, Jump Fatigue, Crius industry, Odyssey scanning/hacking, etc.


What skills did the sov change affect that would have been an argument for reimbursement?
The jump changes didnt change how the capitals worked. I didnt like the jump changes, but the ships still mechanically functioned the same way.
I cant comment on industry since I have zero knowledge on the topic.
The core mechanic of scanning did not change. I still scan the same exact way I used to, just without as many clicks.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1627 - 2016-10-28 02:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Quote:

What skills did the sov change affect that would have been an argument for reimbursement?


They were just examples of large changes that have been made. However, that aside...


Brea Nah wrote:


This is a poor policy if it is accurate. Just because something is a policy doesn't mean it is right. Policy doesn't change until it becomes questioned.


Keep this in mind, because...

Quote:
The jump changes didnt change how the capitals worked. I didnt like the jump changes, but the ships still mechanically functioned the same way.
I cant comment on industry since I have zero knowledge on the topic.
The core mechanic of scanning did not change. I still scan the same exact way I used to, just without as many clicks.


...All of these changes that you don't think should have warranted reimbursement... had cries for reimbursement. And that's why the policy is actually pretty wise.

Jump fatigue changes meant jump skills should be reimbursed.

Crius industry changed a few skills from requirements to build certain things to small time modifiers. Again, cries for reimbursement.

Max scanning skills were more important pre-odyssey, and if you go back and read through the threads from then, I guarantee you will find people asking for reimbursement.

If they ever caved on the standing policy, they would have to deal with this "radical enough" or "not radical enough" business for every change that followed. It's not happening.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#1628 - 2016-10-28 07:51:10 UTC
There will be no reimbursment at all...

They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.

Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.

This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.

Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...

Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training...
Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?

I will keep my perfect Leadership skills...
As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(
TomyLobo
Negative Density
D3nse Matter
#1629 - 2016-10-28 12:47:59 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
There will be no reimbursment at all...

They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.

Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.

This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.

Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...

Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training...
Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?

I will keep my perfect Leadership skills...
As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(

Skill extractors and Injectors are a joke. Higher SP characters get shafted for only bob knows why. There's absolutely NO reason why anyone with 80mil SP should use one. Might as well restrict it to less than 20mil SP because, in its current state, it's a slap to the face for older players that tend to have higher SP characters.
Brea Nah
Negative Transversal
#1630 - 2016-10-28 13:01:21 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
[quote]


...All of these changes that you don't think should have warranted reimbursement... had cries for reimbursement. And that's why the policy is actually pretty wise.

Jump fatigue changes meant jump skills should be reimbursed.

Crius industry changed a few skills from requirements to build certain things to small time modifiers. Again, cries for reimbursement.

Max scanning skills were more important pre-odyssey, and if you go back and read through the threads from then, I guarantee you will find people asking for reimbursement.

If they ever caved on the standing policy, they would have to deal with this "radical enough" or "not radical enough" business for every change that followed. It's not happening.



I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.

As far as skill extractors go...that is not a valid argument. A person with max leadership would lose 10+ million SP if they were high SP characters and used the extractors to pull out their leadership skills.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1631 - 2016-10-28 13:02:55 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
There will be no reimbursment at all...

They have implemented and are selling right now at the moment a tool, which can handle this - called Skill Extractor.

Why do you think, this has been implemented? To FORCE the players to pay for such micro transcations... either you are buying it with ISK and another person has pay real cash - or you have bought it yourself.

This is business, welcome to the new EVE online.

Imagine, how easy it is for CCP to force us all to train 30 to 60 days for new skills and later they will be removed without reimbursment. It is totally easy to keep us subscribing...

Many new fighter skills for Super pilots... what we have done? Kept training...
Old skills will be useless? Are we waiting or have we removed them with skill extractors already?

I will keep my perfect Leadership skills...
As I wanted to keep my learning skills :(

What do the new fighter skills (which affected way more than just super pilots) have to do with leadership skills that have been made all but redundant by CCP?

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.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1632 - 2016-10-28 13:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Brea Nah wrote:



I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.


From the player's perspective, it's not that big of a change relative to any of those others.

Today, they're skills that let a ship apply bonuses to their fleet. After the patch, they'll still be precisely that.

They've gone from infinite range (within a system) to finite range, added some pretty graphics, and fiddled about with the numbers a bit. This isn't swords-to-plowshares.

You imagine there's some big qualitative difference there, and there isn't. And that's the point: They would have to go through this exercise EVERY time some players imagine there's some big qualitative difference that sets a change apart from all other changes.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1633 - 2016-10-28 13:57:33 UTC
Brea Nah wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:

Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.


While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people.

As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it.

It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.


And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.

I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.

I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.


And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1634 - 2016-10-28 14:08:39 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:



I think you are missing my point. All these changes did not impact the core mechanics of how these systems worked. They all still functioned the same way. With command links, they are changing the core mechanic and that change does not let them be used in the same fashion.


From the player's perspetive, it's not that big of a change relative to anything of those others.

Today, they're skills that let a ship apply bonuses to their fleet. After the patch, they'll still be precisely that.

They've gone from infinite range (within a system) to finite range, added some pretty graphics, and fiddled about with the numbers a bit. This isn't swords-to-plowshares.


Honestly, SM, what it boils down to is there are a lot of characters that were built strictly for off grid boosting. Since that playstyle is no longer viable come next week, these players have a vested interest in recouping those skill points so they can reinvest them in some other area so that the alt can still be useful to them in some fashion. It's not that the change is a bad one, or that the skills are useless. It's the same old argument of "I will no longer use them after the update, so I think I should recoup my investment CCPls".

Unfortunately, that's not how this works. CCP's criteria is actually pretty clear. As long as the skill has some applicable in game function, the SP will not be reimbursed. Whether that function suits any particular player or not is immaterial.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
#1635 - 2016-10-28 15:50:26 UTC
Thanks for this fozzie, i couldnt wait for ascension and went out roaming with self-linked sleipnir just now grabbing some easy kills from people stunned by my glorious girth. Im fully aboard and looking forward to the bright future shiny with command bursts.
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#1636 - 2016-10-28 18:09:04 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:

Any radical change like this should give the players who dedicated the extreme amount of time and money an opportunity to decide again if they want the skills. Remember, time is something we can never get back. And CCP should respect the time we have given them. I can't be the only one who feels this way.


While there's entitlement enough to go around, "I feel I deserve it," isn't really that compelling of an argument, even from multiple people.

As soon as they opened that door, they would go from the very neat criteria for reimbursement that currently exists to an unending clusterfuck of arguments over which changes are significantly "radical" to warrant it.

It's a living ruleset, you invest time into it at your own risk, accept it and move on.


And here i was thinking I was making an argument with legitimate reasons.

I also wasnt aware they had a criteria for SP reimbursements documented.

I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.


And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue.


I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Its a cash investment which to many is considered wasted. You will not be able to sell boosting toons after the change, so you stuck with it. Allow people to move the skills so the toon can become useful again. Its not a bad ask in my opinion.
I don't have a boosting toon, so I a unaffected, but you need to look at it from the other side of the coin.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#1637 - 2016-10-28 18:47:04 UTC
Sylvia Kildare wrote:
But yes, it would be nice if they'd just do a SP refund (at least on WC/FC... leadership is not such a big deal) for all the people who never intend to fit a command burst module in their EVE lives going forward (though you never know, once they see how fun on-grid boosting can be, perhaps they'll change their minds. ;D)


I do have to agree with this.

Though this char has full Leadership and intends to keep it, my alt has Leadership 5 plus all the basic Warfare skills (Armor, Shield, Skirmish, Info, Mining) to 5 as well, for the passive boosts - which are going away with this patch. She has no other reason to have those skills and they are now a waste for her.

What I'd like to see for this (and potentially for other rearrangements in the future) is to utilize the Skill Extractor code mechanics to allow removal of select skills into a pool of Unallocated SP (as opposed to one or more Skill Injectors) for reassignment into other areas more relevant to the character.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1638 - 2016-10-28 19:29:57 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:


I do have to agree with this.

Though this char has full Leadership and intends to keep it, my alt has Leadership 5 plus all the basic Warfare skills (Armor, Shield, Skirmish, Info, Mining) to 5 as well, for the passive boosts - which are going away with this patch. She has no other reason to have those skills and they are now a waste for her.

What I'd like to see for this (and potentially for other rearrangements in the future) is to utilize the Skill Extractor code mechanics to allow removal of select skills into a pool of Unallocated SP (as opposed to one or more Skill Injectors) for reassignment into other areas more relevant to the character.

You know what, I hear you can use the Skill extractor code to do just that.
It's called buy a skill extractor, extract skills, sell for profit.

So you can sell a boosting character if you want by ripping skills out, and you can reassign the skills if you want.

But the skills still exist in the game, and they even still work towards boosting, so I see no reason for CCP to change their standard policy just for this time (& every other time someone whines 'They are useless for me now' which is..... every time a skill changes even by 1%)
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1639 - 2016-10-28 19:50:05 UTC
aldhura wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Brea Nah wrote:


I would agree with you about accepting and moving on if this was one of their usual rounds of balancing. However, this is not a balancing. It is a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. A mechanic that happens to have a hefty SP requirement that goes along with it.


And this is not the only time this has happened. CCP's rule about SP reimbursement is pretty clear. You only get it if they remove the skill from the game. The leadership skills remain in game and they do have a legitimate use. If you choose to no longer use them, that's really not CCP's issue.


I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant. Its a cash investment which to many is considered wasted. You will not be able to sell boosting toons after the change, so you stuck with it. Allow people to move the skills so the toon can become useful again. Its not a bad ask in my opinion.
I don't have a boosting toon, so I a unaffected, but you need to look at it from the other side of the coin.

I understand the point - it just doesn't apply. The skills still exist and still have an in game use. The fact that the no longer fit the needs of a certain subset of players is not grounds for skill reimbursement and never has been. They made the choice to make that investment, and they received the benefits of it at that time. No where in the rules does it say that the choices you make now will remain good ones forever. I was pissed when they lowered the pre requisite for racial carriers from racial battleship 5 to whatever the heck it is now (3 or 4). Especially as I had trained not one or two, but all four freaking carriers.

But having battleship 5 isn't useless. I can still get a benefit from it. I choose not to use it because I don't fly battleships, but the skill itself still provides utility. The same thing applies here. The leadership skills still provide a utility. The allow you to use the basic Command Burst modules, and open up the path to the advanced leadership skills. The wing command skill still provides you the ability to manage multiple squads in a fleet. The fact that any one player, or even a whole group of them, has decided they will no longer use that skill is not CCP's problem. That choice lies solely with the player.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1640 - 2016-10-28 19:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
aldhura wrote:

I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.



So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing.

How many years, now, have we known that OGB was on the chopping block? 4? 5?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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