These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#281 - 2016-08-29 21:05:48 UTC
With an initial range (before skill modifiers) of 15km for the radius you are restricting the usage of burst to the current FC anchor tactic, and limiting the development of new, more independent, fleet tactics.

If my calculations are correct (please tell if they are not...) with skills (-/L5/W5/F5) the AOE range will be 15km/18.5km/22.2km/26.6km, doubled with command ship to a max of 53km or so.

Please consider increasing the burst range to around 80-100km with max skills only.

Do not kill new emerging fleet tactics and force all the fleets to anchor with this new AOE range...


Candidate for CSM XII
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#282 - 2016-08-29 21:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
but a 1% difference between a capital ship and a sub capital ship.. is just total bullchit and someone who came up with those figures didn't even bother to look at the price difference between the two ships. "oh hey spend 2.2bn+ for an extra measly 1% difference"..that guy must wear plaid panties.

It's not 1%, it is 5% as it is 1% per level. And then that is multiplied with all the other multiplication factors which actually makes a meaningful difference. You know how multiplication factors work right?

And if you put it into siege then you get another 30% boost on top of that which is already better than the Orca. And I am hoping siege will be reduced to 1 minute to encourage people to use it a bit more.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#283 - 2016-08-29 21:08:04 UTC
Silven Rubis wrote:
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer?

Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.


Just for the gameplay and the deeper meaning of flying in space, EVE is unique and wonderfully we love it, yet I never seen any movie or read a fiction that tells a story about a bonus applied by amunition shoot in space - its so unlogical as a cat.

Scripted, yes, or lets say smartbombs kind of enhancing waves but please no launching magic bombs, rockets whatever "...beam me up scotti"


Psst, large quantities of ANY game mechanics (and especially EVE) are completely illogical = P I fight with this fact every time I try to write realistic fan-fiction.
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
#284 - 2016-08-29 21:13:43 UTC
I've 10 million SP in leadership and I really like these changes. You know why? because I always give my boosts on the field in a BC or Command Destroyer anyway rather than sit in a safe spot.
Tex Bloodhunter
SciFiCentral Explorations Inc.
#285 - 2016-08-29 21:13:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tex Bloodhunter
What about fleets where the main ship type is a command ship (or any ship that can fit a command burst)? Everyone fits one or two command bursts. Now you literally have 100% of all the boosts available. With lots of backup too. So there is no chance to target and remove a specific force multiplier from the fight. In the current system this is limited by the need to be in fleet/wing/squad command positions. The new system does not have such limits. Is the new system intentionally designed this way?

Also I think that returning leadership SP to free SP would be wise. A good amount of people (including myself) have this character setup: A main combat character, very good at tanking but no SP in boosting. An off-grid boosting character, very good at boosting but no SP in tanking. In the new system none of the two characters would be able to handle on-grid combat boosting. Returning the SP on the leadership character use those SP somewhere else, where they are actually useful.

Training the leadership character with all tanking skills would take months or years. And even when that is done the player still has to choose which of his two characters he takes into the fight since actively piloting two ships on grid is pretty hard or even impossible due to skill or simple computer hardware. Refunding SP is best for everyone: Those who want to keep those skills can simply get them back. Those who don't have any use for leadership skills anymore could do something else. This would avoid rendering a good amount of SP useless. Especially considering that there is no actual benefit for anyone in forcing players to be stuck with those leadership SP.
DoctorABC
Hard Boiled Moon Inc.
#286 - 2016-08-29 21:18:25 UTC
It would be great to have back those leadership skillpoints, as now they will be useless wihout special ships. So everybody who trained them just for passive bonuses in small fleets (me and my alts, yes) will have another bunch of unneeded skills.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2016-08-29 21:19:08 UTC
One other question, since boosts will likely be dropping on and off more often, and we now have an hp bonus boost, will there be any issues regarding not having enough hp to bounce?

I ask this because I have seen ships (a Titan too) die because of errant armor calculations. And going into the negatives won't exactly be the best option either (seen that as well).
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#288 - 2016-08-29 21:19:36 UTC
Most of these changes seem fair and well balanced at first glance.

I think my only concern is the AoE on Bursts. With max skills and a CS, and assuming the bonuses are not stacking penalized but are multiplicative, the max range of a CS Command Burst is 58.5km? That's pretty darn small.

Leadership 5, 6% x 5 = 30%
WC 5, 5% x 5 = 25%
FC 5, 4% x 5 =20%
Command Ship Role Bonus = 100%
Base Range 15km.

15 x 1.3 x 1.25 x 1.2 x 2 = 58.5km.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#289 - 2016-08-29 21:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lil' Brudder Too
Soo, it looks like the max number of fleet boosting modules while be limited to 3 on the Command Ships now? (or even less due to rig calibration specs) You used to be able to sacrifice almost everything and fit 7 on some...

This seems like a nerf for the smaller groups. Yes large fleets will easily be able to have the same bases covered...but small fleets will not.

Mining Bursts

The thing i don't like about these "Bursts" and mining...it will need to be very possible to perma run the 3 modules or else there will be alot of ore dropped due to laser range being reduced between cycles, of which every pilot will have different cycle times after the last iteration of mining changes changed everything to a 'cycle time' boost instead of a 'yield' boost.

New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#290 - 2016-08-29 21:21:23 UTC
Cpt Hidoshi Ambraelle wrote:
Absolutely the FIRST thing to say about this is IT'S TERRIBLE.
Here is why
I currently have 2 Rorq's If your currently planned changes go ahead As soon as the November expansion hits I will Reprocess them Plus My Orca as I would rather mine with NO Boosts at all than to put a rorq on grid NO MATTER what you do to it.
I would Rather put the capital parts from the 2x Rorq and 1x Orca towards some more dreads to sell than to keep and use them.
Rorq's currently cost what 2bill why in hell would someone want to try and boost with it on grid while trying to micro manage everything else.


WTS Rorqual I will never take one out to the belt as it is suicide.

The freeze fleet for 5 minutes will only give the bad guys more time to get more people on the KM
Careby
#291 - 2016-08-29 21:21:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.



Whether or not it's "the same type of gameplay" depends on your perspective, and I'm quite sure that many will consider the skills they have trained no longer useful to them. Since we now have skill extractors and a strong market for characters with extractable skills, converting unwanted skills or characters to ISK is easy and, most probably, profitable. The problem is the SP loss one experiences when re-applying extracted SP to the same character. For those not interested in converting their unwanted skills to ISK, the cost and waste associated with skill extraction for re-allocation is going to leave a very bitter taste.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#292 - 2016-08-29 21:22:06 UTC
Without running any of the numbers; taking into consideration that we'll be losing all of our standard leadership bonuses, even though links will indeed be on grid won't the gap between the power of a boosted fleet and a non boosted one be even worse than before? Those passive bonuses might not have been huge but they at least conveyed some sort of bonus just to being in a fleet together. Without them the boosted fleet is going to be even more powerful in comparison. So ppl complaining that you had to have links to win before are gonna really be butt hurt when that reality sets in aren't they? Just wondering, like I said I haven't ran the numbers on the bonuses provided by the new boosts but just assuming they are comparable to what we have now it looks like boosts will be even more mandatory than before.

Daemun of Khanid
Chris Kelvin
Pheonix Rising Corp
#293 - 2016-08-29 21:22:36 UTC
Rowells wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?


There was never a "yield" boost. There was a cycle time boost, a cap cost boost, and a range boost.

The cycle time and capacitor cost reduction were rolled into one boost, and the crystal volatility one is new.




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.



You mean exactly like it is now? Two modules everyone uses and one that everyone kinda goes, WTF is that for?
Ben Ishikela
#294 - 2016-08-29 21:23:37 UTC
Hmmmmmm......... interesting....... thanx for sharing the devblog.

My issues i had with the old system seem to not be fixed. It just looks pretty and i can see the booster now.
The aggression timer is nice.

However:
It can still be done by a dual-box alt and requires very little attention.
ONCE PER MINUTE WTF?`you could have done so much better.
What is the downside in boosting?! I dont see any. Thats so bad in many boooks.
.... rant continues .....
*sigh*
ok ... what i try to say:
Please make battles more spikey in general!
How does this go with commandBURSTS?
1) Apply a strong short positive buff (10seconds. +60% speed)
2) Apply a long negative buff (60seconds. +10% signature)
3) Cycle time of module is that of the positive buff.
4) positive does not stack. negative does.
5) the module decides the negative. the ammo the positive effect.
6) heating the module has an effect.
Optional: apply effect to all ships on grid. not only the fleet. ( ==> picking the right module and debuffing the enemy appropriately should be viable gameplay as well)
==> the "commander" has to think of WHEN to boost because boosting all the time is not an option

you are currently not changing the exitement of this fleetrole, just a nerf.
please consider my suggestions!

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#295 - 2016-08-29 21:23:58 UTC
Chris Kelvin wrote:
Rowells wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?


There was never a "yield" boost. There was a cycle time boost, a cap cost boost, and a range boost.

The cycle time and capacitor cost reduction were rolled into one boost, and the crystal volatility one is new.




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.



You mean exactly like it is now? Two modules everyone uses and one that everyone kinda goes, WTF is that for?

Yes?
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#296 - 2016-08-29 21:26:16 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Hmmmmmm......... interesting....... thanx for sharing the devblog.

My issues i had with the old system seem to not be fixed. It just looks pretty and i can see the booster now.
The aggression timer is nice.

However:
It can still be done by a dual-box alt and requires very little attention.
ONCE PER MINUTE WTF?`you could have done so much better.
What is the downside in boosting?! I dont see any. Thats so bad in many boooks.
.... rant continues .....
*sigh*
ok ... what i try to say:
Please make battles more spikey in general!
How does this go with commandBURSTS?
1) Apply a strong short positive buff (10seconds. +60% speed)
2) Apply a long negative buff (60seconds. +10% signature)
3) Cycle time of module is that of the positive buff.
4) positive does not stack. negative does.
5) the module decides the negative. the ammo the positive effect.
6) heating the module has an effect.
Optional: apply effect to all ships on grid. not only the fleet. ( ==> picking the right module and debuffing the enemy appropriately should be viable gameplay as well)
==> the "commander" has to think of WHEN to boost because boosting all the time is not an option

you are currently not changing the exitement of this fleetrole, just a nerf.
please consider my suggestions!


nope.

Daemun of Khanid
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#297 - 2016-08-29 21:27:38 UTC
How about we move these bastards on grid and then if we want to rework the whole command structure work at it next? Pretty much everything after 'on grid' is pretty terrible.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#298 - 2016-08-29 21:30:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
Just put links on-grid and get rid of the need to assign boosters and call it good. I have to agree. All this buff timer/range/skill rework stuff is just silliness imo.

No need for new modules, no need to make command processors into rigs, no need for silly ass ammo or scripts. Just give them a 500k/m max range. They try to warp at range to stay safe and a single interceptor ruins their day. Links are vulnerable, job done.

(and maybe give t1 logi frigs the ability to fit a single boost just to cover novice plexes)
No new ships, no new nothing, no wasted skills and no new skills that we need. Simplify the whole damn thing and just make boost modules ranged.

Daemun of Khanid
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#299 - 2016-08-29 21:32:04 UTC
looks interesting to me and will definitelly affect some of my long term plans,

now I need to see that "porpoise" ship.

[also reading all those ppl claiming how this will ruin the game is.... amusing]
Chris Kelvin
Pheonix Rising Corp
#300 - 2016-08-29 21:32:06 UTC
Huydo wrote:
It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...



Yep. It's going to be really funny as they laugh at us and ask if they can have our stuff; right up until they start complaining about no content and no stupid minor or idiot industrialists to shoot at. I would like to ask Fozzie if he wants my stuff?