These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Silven Rubis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2016-08-29 18:53:45 UTC
Shocked
Hamasaki Cross wrote:
not sure since I didn't wanna read the 200 posts of comments on the million ways that this sucks (unless you're a CCPlease member who doesn't actually play, do industry, or understand the fact that mining is already on a decline and this will do nothing but hammer the final nail in the coffin, but instead, comes up with social experiments in order to ruin actual customer gameplay)


but mainly, for those of us who have trained literally a year of crap leadership skills that are now worthless, do we get a refund?

Also is there a refund for the Rorqual, which is literally an obsolete ship now? And mining skills and ships, which are no longer viable?


note: before the pvp e-peen nerds rage that there should be risk for the benefit, please note in advance, that you are correct. However, the game was designed one way, so people skill trained and invested in that way, so there should be some compensation for screwing that up in the interest of better game balance.



Final note: I find it comical that cloaking has no counter after 13 years.


Very true mate!!!
+1
Hamasaki Cross
Perkone
Caldari State
#222 - 2016-08-29 18:54:20 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:

1. no refund.
2. rorqual will get a huge buff to be on grid.


1) that's CCPlease for u
2) Yes buff is insta die cuz can't leave in siege mode. Or. Insta die whole fleet since now you can't move for duration of the panic button and neither can ur buddies. yay welps. Oh the huge buff, meaning

-43.88% maximum cycle bonus? And complete removal of mining yield bonus? Yeeee haw, great bonus. Remind me what existing max cycle bonus time is?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#223 - 2016-08-29 18:58:07 UTC
Ancy Denaries wrote:
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.

Maybe so. But in comparison to the benefit the other links provide, it's very low.
Vic Vorlon
Malevelon Roe Industries
Convocation of Empyreans
#224 - 2016-08-29 18:58:58 UTC
MidnightWyvern wrote:
Vic Vorlon wrote:
This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!

Idea: ram the enemy boost ship, if you can't kill it, to get it out of position.

To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it.

That's a surprisingly reasonable outlook for the Comments thread of a Dev Blog. Blink


I'm a pretty chill guy :) I prefer to trust that CCP know what they're doing and wait to see how the game feels BEFORE grabbing my pitchfork and rabble-rabbling my way to the castle (where I expect to be ignored anyway). I know they sometimes make mistakes, but if I freaked out with every big change I'd take years off my life.

That said, I'm a line member of a smallish lowsec FW corp. I dabble in lots of different parts of the game (including mining now and then) and I don't min-max the hell out of any given portion. If bits of it change, I adjust my fits and try it out, or try something else. My enjoyment doesn't depend on playing one part of the game really, really "well".

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#225 - 2016-08-29 18:59:24 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
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.

Oh boy I'm getting a chubby thinking of new damnation/t3 fits too.
Silven Rubis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2016-08-29 19:02:53 UTC
Sassura wrote:


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'.


also this nails it
+1
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#227 - 2016-08-29 19:04:38 UTC
Are there any plans or discussions to involve some more diverse fitting modifications for links? We've got the modules, ships, and skills, but nothing to try and make trade offs for things like range, duration, or power.
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2016-08-29 19:05:12 UTC
Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...

First off I am 100% in full agreement that all ships (yes mining ones too) should have to be on grid or in a belt to provide boosts. I do also like the simplicity of the new system - not having to worry about hierarchy in a fleet and whether or not the boost is working or not is a good change.

I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel.

I think that the only issues I am having are with the mining changes. There is one direct change - being in a belt - and as I said above we need to get over that and move on.

However the range that the boosts are provided is I think a major issue. Here's why:
Current gameplay - boosts are provided system wide - many new corps/starter corps and CASMA provide newbros with boosts and advice by providing an often free service of boosting their mining. When doing this you often have large sized fleets where having everyone in one belt would simply be daft....players often spread out over several belts in a system. This new system will prohibit that. I started EvE many moons ago, and it was groups like CASMA that kept me playing and interested and eventually hooked up with some friends who took me to the stars in null. I think the range change on the mining boost may end the days of some of these awesome starter entities that imho have kept more people than some other things I have seen in the game. I still support that the booster should have to be on grid/in a belt/anom but i think the mining boost should apply system wide or perhaps within x AU vs km ranges. I am not sure how you can do this maybe tie the mining booster to have to be within x kilometers from a asteroid/anom belt beacon of some sort so they are not off in some safe doing what they do now.

2nd there is a subtle nerf here by the elimination of the passive boosts. Currently no mining fleet has a t3 or command ship included to provided armor/shield boosts we get that from the years of skilling up that the fleet booster did. Again as I said above i do like the simplicity of the change - but will there be an adjustment/balancing of mining ships to offset the loss of this? Mining barges are already weak (proc/skiff class excepted) your now removing 1000s of ehp from them with this change - this may drive even more people to use one class of ship - defeating your goal of having some balance within the class.

Thats it for now, as I said changes overall are reasonable, and we all just need to take a big breath, put our big space panties on and say okay on grid its happening, we have been warned for years.

Cheers
~R~
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#229 - 2016-08-29 19:07:00 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?


ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible?



there aren't any stacking penalties on hp increases at the moment, even though there really should be
Don Trust
Systems High Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#230 - 2016-08-29 19:07:31 UTC
So my main is halfway through training for boosts with the current system. Do I stop now? Hurry up and get it fully trained (skill inject). I'm not sure what I should do at this point (I still have more to read, so this may have already been covered).

Any suggestions?
Don o7
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
#231 - 2016-08-29 19:07:37 UTC
After receiving some mental help from my friends and reading through this thread i'm now ready to provide a more detailed feedback.

1. This is a huge kick in a sensitive area for all miners. Assuming Rorq will be unable to move while Industrial Core is active it makes 3bn ship just a sitting duck with a very marginal profit. Having atleast as many boosting ships and toons as the number of belts your community wants to mine doesn't help either.

2. Home defence in 0.0. Usually attacking fleets are larger than defending due the schedule on one side and lack of there of on another. This change will degrade that part of the game.

3. FW. It is as it is, who's got the bigger numbers wins, pretty much the same goes for larger fleet fights. Those communities will be able to spare someone to this new role.

4. Incursions. In some cases this change can even help by increasing EHP of each fleet member, though on a larger scale this is a decrease in fleet DPS.

5. War-dec. As it is there might be an issue with neutral alts boosting fleets. This needs to be looked at.

Overrall i think there are some massive issues with the whole idea.

A. Too small base area of effect, especially for mining and cap fleet engagements.

B. Another case of taking away something that ship already had and offering it as a module. Yes, i'm talking about titans.

C. Not refunding SP after taking away passive skill bonus seems wrong. Although in 6 years i had so much of that on all my toons i could probably make another supercap pilot out of that ammount of SP. I'm well over my rage on that point.

D. People owning boosting toons usually don't just go AFK. They have stuff to do, forcing more activity on them will result in abandoning one thing or another. My guess is that they'll abandon more boring thing to do and "smatbombing" fleet members once in a minute or two is an obvious choice.

I agree, existing system is not great, but there are player communities build upon it. Ruining them somehow seems not a good idea.

On the last note, i want to mention all that "cry me a river" motive in this thread. From my gaming experience that aproach to other people's feelings and thoughts leads only to one thing: your dreams will also get wrecked someday and what you'll get is the same "i love your tears".
Nicemeries
#232 - 2016-08-29 19:09:22 UTC
In before battle Rorqs hit the invul timer! Jump Rorqs now! Pirate
Silven Rubis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2016-08-29 19:13:59 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...

...
I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel.
...

yes mate, another strong point that is a must have change
+1
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#234 - 2016-08-29 19:14:03 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?


ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible?


Yes, this is exactly how it works.

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#235 - 2016-08-29 19:15:44 UTC
Rowells wrote:
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


It's the same as it is now, just at applied differently.

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#236 - 2016-08-29 19:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Don Trust wrote:
So my main is halfway through training for boosts with the current system. Do I stop now? Hurry up and get it fully trained (skill inject). I'm not sure what I should do at this point (I still have more to read, so this may have already been covered).

Any suggestions?
Don o7

If your pilot isn't trained for normal combat ships + fittings you are going to be in a tight spot (ex: specialized off grid boosters). However if your character is capable of flying any of the ships that can fit a link, and fly them with enough skill to take some gunfire, you should be fine.

That being said, you have to determine if being a boosting pilot is something you want to do in a fleet. The same exact considerations for other roles (logistics, tackle, dps, etc.)

Depending on where "half-way" means for you, you are in a good position to also determine what is going to be worth the train(FC V for example) and spec your skills as far as you think you need to go.

Personally, I'm only ripping out skills on my OGB character and keeping the relevant mining links (thankfully he was used as both). I will also continue to finish off infowar skills on the main. Not too sure about FC V yet though. May not be worth it.

Depending on your isk pile/income and your current sp level, injecting is up to you. I'm at 95mil sp so I don't plan on injecting anything ever really :(.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#237 - 2016-08-29 19:16:49 UTC
There's a few important details missing.

- Will the bursting ship receive the same benefits? It would appear not.

- Will the bursts use similar rules to remote reps as far as inheriting and gaining flags is concerned? If not, why not?

- You liken the module to a smartbomb, will they be restricted in the same way regarding activation near gates and stations?

- Will there be an overlap between cycle time and reload time to allow for buff juggling? If the aim is to encourage active gameplay, this should be a possibility.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#238 - 2016-08-29 19:25:48 UTC
Will all these bonuses apply to capital ships?
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#239 - 2016-08-29 19:28:39 UTC
it is absolutely mind boggling how seagull allows this kind of work done by folks who have zero knowledge about industry.

prepare for epic market disruptions in November.
Alain Colcer
Nadire Security Consultants
Federation Peacekeepers
#240 - 2016-08-29 19:40:06 UTC
One question only:


what defined the decision to make the "ammo" for the burst module to be crafted from ice products? why not PI or regular minerals?