These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#201 - 2016-08-29 18:40:39 UTC
Rorquals should have the bonus to armor links as well as shield. This would keep armor heavy response fleets on equal grounds to shield fleets. Since barges are shield tanked, fitting armor links wouldn't help the miners in the short term but would be a big help to any fleets trying to save them.
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
#202 - 2016-08-29 18:41:33 UTC
Triggered Liberal wrote:
Querns wrote:
Triggered Liberal wrote:
So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance.

Your community is based on offgrid boosting?


Yup. We mine while we work. The boosts were what brought us together. Now having to have an orca per belt will tear us apart.


Good riddance. AFKers are horrible.

"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."

"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#203 - 2016-08-29 18:42:45 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say:

Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.


Does that mean...

Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances
Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances

... are made useless by fitting hardeners?

Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints
Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints

... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders?

Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution
Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors

... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo?


For the armor and shield buffer ones, it's unlikely. Shield extenders and armor plates add absolute values of additional tank buffer and is not subject to diminishing returns. The +buffer links would multiply the effectiveness of each extender/plate.

For the other ones, they will be stacking penalized with other hardeners or sensor boosters, since they offer a percentage-based modifier.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#204 - 2016-08-29 18:42:54 UTC
Rosal Milag wrote:
Rorquals should have the bonus to armor links as well as shield. This would keep armor heavy response fleets on equal grounds to shield fleets. Since barges are shield tanked, fitting armor links wouldn't help the miners in the short term but would be a big help to any fleets trying to save them.

****, where are my structure links? CCP plz fix
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2016-08-29 18:43:10 UTC
yuma detog wrote:
Why are the new boosters the only module so far that are range-limited (unlike boosts right now) and that discriminate between friends and foes (unlike any other weapon, Aoe or targeted)?

Making sure your booster stays within boosting range of your own fleet while far enough away to not boost the hostile one could've been something that rewards good piloting. A similar tactic to how logistics are trying to stay close enough to the rest of their fleet to repair them while far enough away from hostile fleets to not be fired upon.
No, because your suggestion makes boosts useful only for kiting/sniping fleets, and useless for close-range brawling fleets.
Bishop Bob
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2016-08-29 18:43:48 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say:

Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.


Does that mean...

Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances
Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances

... are made useless by fitting hardeners?

Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints
Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints

... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders?

Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution
Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors

... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo?


The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#207 - 2016-08-29 18:44:13 UTC
Querns wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say:

Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.


Does that mean...

Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances
Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances

... are made useless by fitting hardeners?

Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints
Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints

... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders?

Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution
Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors

... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo?


For the armor and shield buffer ones, it's unlikely. Shield extenders and armor plates add absolute values of additional tank buffer and is not subject to diminishing returns. The +buffer links would multiply the effectiveness of each extender/plate.

For the other ones, they will be stacking penalized with other hardeners or sensor boosters, since they offer a percentage-based modifier.

Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#208 - 2016-08-29 18:44:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Rosal Milag wrote:
Rorquals should have the bonus to armor links as well as shield. This would keep armor heavy response fleets on equal grounds to shield fleets. Since barges are shield tanked, fitting armor links wouldn't help the miners in the short term but would be a big help to any fleets trying to save them.

Rorquals and mining ships are all shield tanks though.

The Rorqual has ... erm ... had a bonus to shield rep.

I fitted 3x mining links and 2x siege (shield) links.

Don't need to press the panic-button to tank some rats (triple battleship spawn and escort) while drones eat them.
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
#209 - 2016-08-29 18:45:30 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Yep. Completely new bonus. A creative one, no doubt, but I still believe that by itself it doesn't really do nearly as much as the other two. I worry that it will become one of those boosts that doesn't really get used because its impact is so small.


In a big enough mining fleet, the cost in crystals alone could make this module pay for itself really quickly. I'm actually thinking that this is a very strong bonus.

"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."

"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
Arrendis
TK Corp
#210 - 2016-08-29 18:46:36 UTC
Querns wrote:
For the armor and shield buffer ones, it's unlikely. Shield extenders and armor plates add absolute values of additional tank buffer and is not subject to diminishing returns. The +buffer links would multiply the effectiveness of each extender/plate.

For the other ones, they will be stacking penalized with other hardeners or sensor boosters, since they offer a percentage-based modifier.


Yeah, I expect that's the case for the buffer boosts, but it warrants clarification - and I added an example into the question to demonstrate the kind of clarification I'm looking for.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#211 - 2016-08-29 18:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
CCP/Fozzie, could I just confirm, if I am to activate a command burst with maximum skills and mindlink using a command ship then the following will occur:


1. Activate the module which cycles for 60 seconds

2. A buff is applied to all ships within the AOE for 129.375 seconds (60*1.15*1.25*1.5)

3. After 60 seconds I can reload the module to a different script which will take another 30 seconds (60*0.5)

4. After the 30 second reload has completed I can then apply another different buff, whilst the previous buff will still be running for a further 39.375 seconds.

5. I then have to wait another 90 seconds (cycle + reload) to re-apply the original buff meaning that it will have not been active for a total of 50.625 seconds (90 - 39.975).


If this is true, having a downtime of 50.625 seconds practically means we are forced to use only one of the effects as we would want the strongest effect applying consistently with no downtime, therefore discouraging active piloting when boosting.


Feedback / Suggestion I think this level of active boosting should be encouraged as it makes for more interesting gameplay particularly for smaller gangs in which you need to squeeze out every inch of redundancy with skillful composition and piloting. After all making boosting more active and skillful is one of the intended goals for this pass.

What I would suggest is to reduce the downtime by increasing the maximum boost duration up to 180 seconds so you can apply one boost and then apply another boost afterwards and keep both running simultaneously using a single module. This would be a very nice way to encourage active use of boosting ships. And would allow skillful command ship pilot with two command bursts fitted to apply 4 boosts to a fleet.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#212 - 2016-08-29 18:47:28 UTC
Can we get specs on the Porpoise?

A new mining hull is amazing news!
Arrendis
TK Corp
#213 - 2016-08-29 18:47:37 UTC
Bishop Bob wrote:
The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.


Yes and no - they don't stack directly (just as the DCU never stacked directly), so I'd like some clarification on the interaction there.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#214 - 2016-08-29 18:47:57 UTC
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Alhira Katserna wrote:
Annia Aurel wrote:
Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?
Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ...


Good question. I hope they get refunded as they´re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet.

They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund?

Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills.


a. Because previously they provided a bonus for any and every FC running a fleet. Now they aren't gonna do jack unless FC wants to hop in a boost ship and put a target on his forehead in every engagement.

b. Saying we can "extract them" is just accepting the fact that its just a way for CCP to squeeze more money out of ppl by giving them a reason to buy extractors just to get use out of the SP that they already spent monthly fee's on in order to train. It's like selling someone a car then telling them gas isn't gonna be sold for that car anymore and it can only be driven on specific roads unless they buy a new special upgrade. It's essentially bait and switch.


well A is blatant bullshit, anyone who has the skills can fly the ships and provide the boosts which guess what is exactly the same as it was before, and B is your opinion combined with a terrible analogy. Please explain why I or anyone else should find either of those things in the slightest bit convincing.

And Hamasaki perhaps you should wait for the actual details to come out, like perhaps in a dev blog they've already said will be coming well before the release of these changes, before you fly off the handle and start making a fool of yourself with wild claims.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Arrendis
TK Corp
#215 - 2016-08-29 18:49:11 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying


There's also the question of how they interact on ships like the ANI, which already has a raw bonus to Armor HP.
Lavayar
Haidamaky
UA Fleets
#216 - 2016-08-29 18:50:14 UTC
15 km range is a joke? 40 km for perfect command ship? CCP aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end? How do you see large fleet battle with this? Battle of tiny balls of steel?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#217 - 2016-08-29 18:50:25 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Bishop Bob wrote:
The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.

Yes and no - they don't stack directly (just as the DCU never stacked directly), so I'd like some clarification on the interaction there.

As far as I know, neither implants nor boots were stacking penalized.

Feel free to correct me.
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
#218 - 2016-08-29 18:51:14 UTC
I do understand the frustration here. While off grid boosting was most certainly not a great game mechanic, it has been in the game for a long time and people had adapted their play style to this. It has needed fixing and I love the idea of making it an interactive skill, much like the interceptor or logistic role which could bring some exciting changes and challenges.

The main problem to me is that it feels like these changes are a 'one size needs to fit it all' solution to the vast variety of situations which people are currently using off grid boosts for. The current 'links' system is used in all kinds of pvp from the large fights to small gang stuff, faction warfare and all kinds of pve activities from mission and incursion running to mining and all these in game activities have very different parameters. While 60 seconds can be an eternity in a small nano gang it most certainly is not for a miner or an incursion runner. Some of these activities can be static but many cannot.

It's interesting to see that people are so dismissive of the concerns raised by others outside of their particular area of interest, folks, do try to remember that this change does effect all of us equally and people will always be unsettled when a mechanic that they are very used to is changed and may cause a negative effect.

CCP please try to work on the 'one size fits all' approach if that is possible because that doesn't seem like it works well for many people who currently use 'links'.
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
#219 - 2016-08-29 18:52:03 UTC
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:
1) 15km range is a joke? Aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end?

2) This whole idea is ok as long as you offer a way to reimburse players who want to trash their characters after this patch. For example make all command-related skill points reallocate-able.


You're not incorporating ship and skill bonuses. 15km is BASE range. Try using EWAR on a non-ewar ship. Pretty ******. Same here.

"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."

"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#220 - 2016-08-29 18:53:45 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Under this new boosting system, there's no difference between 5 squads or 5 wings.

While this is correct, organizing your fleet into separate and specific functions is still valid. A frigate punt squad with a combat probe scanner in there, flanks, recons, logi, ship classes, ship sizes... the list goes on. And it's important due to "warp squad to" and also to have separate lists for squads and wings to react accordingly.

The removal of squads and wings will become a structural and logistical nightmare, if we do not get tools to customize and rearrange our own fleet makeup.


crazydaisy wrote:
BUT: I don't see how having an On-Grid-Booster for mining(!) will make the gameplay better, I really don't.
Tell me, how in the world is it bad game play or even better game play for 2 miners in the same belt, one with OGB and the other with none booster, how will an On-Grid-Booster add to better game play. Really, I'm all ears. I want to hear it(tbh: I think you were just too lazy to code it differently).
Well you could say that one of them has decided to give more money to the company to have an advantage Roll which means those accounts (characters) will no longer be needed or repurposed into something else. Like, I don't know, siphon skills to make more money with selling skill injectors.
But that's all rambling. I can think of a good number of interesting benefits for ongrid boosting mining ships, but those have to move outside of the "straight mining bonus" category to be interesting.