These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#421 - 2016-08-30 06:27:59 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.

Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits.

If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt?

Illogical
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#422 - 2016-08-30 06:34:52 UTC
Okay, so I've already made a few comments as I was reading and I appreciate the counter arguments as a single person can't see all sides of an issue. And as I continued to read most people are upset with the whole a Rorqual in the belt/anomaly is just a quick way to lose it.

My corporation and I are industrialists and we enjoy just about every aspect of it. We have things we're good at and those which we are not. We are looking at these changes with more than a little unease. If caught at the start of a new siege timer your Rorqual it now the biggest side of a barn out there for people to throw rocks at. While unfortunate, that is life. Things don't always work out the way we want them to and lady luck likes to flip you the bird every now and again. I think someone called it a loot piñata. In spite of that, I like the idea of putting it the boosters on grid. However I think the range issue for the AOE could use a different approach. For the smaller command ships maybe a slight boost to the AOE range based on faction or perhaps in the form of a rig that can increase it. Make it comparable to the command rig that adds the number you can fit so it would be a choice of number of ships hit at once or types of boosts given. I can see a lot of people just saying, "Well more types of boosts is better so I don't see why anyone would use that rig." So I'll point it out. It means not putting all your eggs in one basket. But I digress.

For the true capital command ships like the orca, rorqual and regular carriers take a page from the Supercarrier's Remote E-War Modules. Take the current set up for strength and AOE range and make it so that boost effect can be centered on a target of the pilot's choice. This would allow the battle field to spread out stay while keeping boosts on grid. This would make placing the epicenter as well as the timing of that effect almost a adaptive and challenging gameplay aspect. For miners this means yes the booster is going to be in danger but now at least there are option and who ever is wanting to go after said miners is going to have to choose the barges/exhumers or the booster. The distance the effect can be cast out would be based on the ships and type of link fit to it. i.e. A carrier fitting a mining link wouldn't be able to cast the effect more than 10-15k while it's shield link would be able to cast out to say 80-110k. Or even just make the casting effect an attribute of the T2 version of the module. Have it consume more of this ammo the modules are supposedly going to use as a balance.

I got a bit distracted in the middle there but tell me what you all think about this idea. Heck improve if you can/want.

Who's your end of the world buddy?
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#423 - 2016-08-30 06:41:24 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.

How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space).

You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying.

Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.

A single stealth bomber can't do much (10k in one bomb if your sig is bigger than 300m). If there are 20 extra in local i am pretty sure your going to be long gone. With the exception of blops. but then you guys dock up if there is *anyone else* in local. So not really buying it.

And there is a difference between clustering and all being warping distance away from each other.

Bear in mind that we have all said that 15km is too small. But over 100km is a bit over the top outside caps as well.

One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.



The barges and especially the exhumers are getting a significant over haul. Can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but jump on the test server as they're already there and check it out.

Who's your end of the world buddy?
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#424 - 2016-08-30 06:43:47 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Johnny Galnetty wrote:
If I have the math right the AoE range on the links seems super short.

This has a negative impact on the some of the more specialised roles in fleet like tackle (inty/dictor) and EW.

Agreed, 15km base is too small(max skills is only 29.25km) Especially on a Command Destroyer in a Frigate Fleet where people fly in and out of that range in Seconds when nearly bouncing off you.


Not really. If anything, flying with (and expecting) skirmish links has had a negative impact on your ability to fly your ship. Can't live without them? I suggest you start practicing. I've done nothing but fly tackle in fleets for years, and I really don't expect these changes to impact me much, if at all.

By limiting range and number of bursts available, you're forcing people to decide which they value most while providing the option to cover all the bases by sacrificing slots in your fleet, or pilots in DPS/Logi/EW. Want all the links for all the things? Then bring enough Command Ships/Destroyers to do that. Want specific links for specific wings? Then fit accordingly and get used to anchoring on Command Ships and Destroyers.

As for your concerns about frigate fleets, if they can fly out of range in seconds, they can fly back into range in a similar amount of time. This is of course ignoring the fact that most useful frigate doctrines revolve around anchors, so see my previous point.

Actually I normally Fly a Griffin/Kitsune, and I'm normally 50km+ from the Furball in the middle, the Siege Skills/Links are normally all that stops me from being 1 Lucky Volleyed off the field, allowing me to warp recharge shields and warp back in from a different area/angle and continue.

Perhaps you need to learn how to fly instead of staying stuck to an anchor :P
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2016-08-30 06:54:19 UTC
Kenneth Fritz wrote:
Okay, so I've already made a few comments as I was reading and I appreciate the counter arguments as a single person can't see all sides of an issue. And as I continued to read most people are upset with the whole a Rorqual in the belt/anomaly is just a quick way to lose it.

My corporation and I are industrialists and we enjoy just about every aspect of it. We have things we're good at and those which we are not. We are looking at these changes with more than a little unease. If caught at the start of a new siege timer your Rorqual it now the biggest side of a barn out there for people to throw rocks at. While unfortunate, that is life. Things don't always work out the way we want them to and lady luck likes to flip you the bird every now and again. I think someone called it a loot piñata. In spite of that, I like the idea of putting it the boosters on grid. However I think the range issue for the AOE could use a different approach. For the smaller command ships maybe a slight boost to the AOE range based on faction or perhaps in the form of a rig that can increase it. Make it comparable to the command rig that adds the number you can fit so it would be a choice of number of ships hit at once or types of boosts given. I can see a lot of people just saying, "Well more types of boosts is better so I don't see why anyone would use that rig." So I'll point it out. It means not putting all your eggs in one basket. But I digress.

For the true capital command ships like the orca, rorqual and regular carriers take a page from the Supercarrier's Remote E-War Modules. Take the current set up for strength and AOE range and make it so that boost effect can be centered on a target of the pilot's choice. This would allow the battle field to spread out stay while keeping boosts on grid. This would make placing the epicenter as well as the timing of that effect almost a adaptive and challenging gameplay aspect. For miners this means yes the booster is going to be in danger but now at least there are option and who ever is wanting to go after said miners is going to have to choose the barges/exhumers or the booster. The distance the effect can be cast out would be based on the ships and type of link fit to it. i.e. A carrier fitting a mining link wouldn't be able to cast the effect more than 10-15k while it's shield link would be able to cast out to say 80-110k. Or even just make the casting effect an attribute of the T2 version of the module. Have it consume more of this ammo the modules are supposedly going to use as a balance.

I got a bit distracted in the middle there but tell me what you all think about this idea. Heck improve if you can/want.

That's better than the current proposal. I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt.

If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt.

I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment.

There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes.
Porcelina
Evil Young Flesh
#426 - 2016-08-30 06:54:28 UTC
CCP... You didn't listen. We've been telling you nobody will siege the rorqual in ore sites. You are ignoring the players and trying to force a type of PVP game play on to non-PVP players.

RIP nullsec industry.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2016-08-30 06:57:58 UTC
[quote=Kenneth Fritz
The barges and especially the exhumers are getting a significant over haul. Can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but jump on the test server as they're already there and check it out. [/quote]
Anything big enough to off-set this will negatively affect high sec ganking.

In other words, can't be fixed without breaking something else.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#428 - 2016-08-30 06:59:05 UTC
IbbnSaifun wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:
I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO...


But can you justify why you should be able to have a ship in a central position able to apply boosts to two ships 300km apart? Not why it's convenient to only need that one ship doing it, mind you, but why it's preferable for people to be able to do that, rather than having boosters in among the ships they're boosting?


Easily - if you can scan an entire system to locate people real time that means you have FTL capabilities for 2 way systems - if they are gonna make this system actual - they need to appropriately NERF the real time scan for entire systems beyond BOOST ranges as proposed as that's only one way for effects. Logic duh.


I don't see what FTL scanning (and we know the lore has FTL communications capabilities - that's how your clone works) has to do with the radius of boosts.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#429 - 2016-08-30 07:02:27 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.

How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space).

You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying.

Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.


Because 90km radius from the Rorq is so cluttered, right?
Silven Rubis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2016-08-30 07:04:00 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
[quote=Lord Mudeki]...

All the whiners quitting over this just means more value for the people who are willing to adapt and don't just demand perfect boost for zero risk.


typical ignorant point of view, not taking into consideration the majority of players, its not asking for perfect boosts its asking for respect developed playstyle, time of skills and equipment involved you aint solve the problem with orcas in adding a highly skill demanding new mining command ship - anybody that can fly such a command ship did so anyhow already to boost
Arrendis
TK Corp
#431 - 2016-08-30 07:05:29 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.


Uhhhhh, no? Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well - not as well as Skiffs and Procurers, but more than enough to handle some bombs. And they'll be rebalancing around the same time, as well, so don't go assuming anything on that score.
Grookshank
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#432 - 2016-08-30 07:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Grookshank
Quote:
Command Bursts will not apply their bonuses to any fleetmates that are tethered or within a starbase force field, and ships cannot activate their Command Burst modules if they themselves are within a force field.


Can we assume ships also can't use command burst modules if they are tethered themselves?

Also:
Quote:
Fleet hierarchy does not matter for these new bonuses, so any fleet member can provide bonuses to any fleetmate that is within range. All existing bonuses that use fleet hierarchy will be removed with this release.

Will leadership/wing command/fleet command still be needed to have fleet members to receive boosts or is this going away too?
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#433 - 2016-08-30 07:08:29 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Kenneth Fritz wrote:


I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt.

If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt.

I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment.

There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes.



That is a good point. Perhaps a radius of 150k off the target for a total of 300k field of effect as the end game with perfet skills before rigs and implants while sieged. That way those who can afford those undoubtedly expensive items will have a slight edge but not an overwhelmingly one. Then it would be a choice of either staying a bit closer to boost all aspects using different links or ammo. Or, fitting two of the same module loaded with the same ammo in order boost one thing to everyone as they spread out.

Who's your end of the world buddy?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#434 - 2016-08-30 07:08:40 UTC
Grookshank wrote:
Quote:
Command Bursts will not apply their bonuses to any fleetmates that are tethered or within a starbase force field, and ships cannot activate their Command Burst modules if they themselves are within a force field.


Can we assume ships also can't use command burst modules if they are tethered themselves?


I'd imagine that just like activating a cyno, NSA, or smartbomb, the moment you turn one of these on, you break tether.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2016-08-30 07:14:31 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

Can't wait for the complaints about all the buffs this brings to cloaky campers.

How does this affect cloaky campers (btw i am one from time to time. Only way to bait a fight in null instadock anyone in local space).

You can't even run links now cloaked. You won't be able to activate the mods cloaked. So i don't really see what your saying.

Mining ships purposefully don't cluster to prevent bombing runs but with this change, they will have to. Most cloaky campers are in stealth bombers.


Because 90km radius from the Rorq is so cluttered, right?

"Between 29.25km and 87.75km depending on the ship"

#1. You are assuming that someone has the max range of 87.75km on their boosting ship (per CCP Fozzie Tweets, and this is likely a Titan with the best implants isk can buy, He said MAX!)
#2. You are assuming that it is worth someone to train for this max range (12x skills)
#3. If you are at a range of 87.75km, you are assuming with the risk of a booster that close that costs in excess of a billion isk it would make sense to maintain distance rather than deposit ore into the boosting ship.
~~
I could go on, but do I really need to?
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#436 - 2016-08-30 07:16:09 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.


Uhhhhh, no? Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well - not as well as Skiffs and Procurers, but more than enough to handle some bombs. And they'll be rebalancing around the same time, as well, so don't go assuming anything on that score.

"Macks and Retrievers fit out to tank quite well"

Someone who didn't read the other posts.

That is the point.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#437 - 2016-08-30 07:18:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
So we are forced on gird - good

get our boosts nerfed - what?

and then in order to get the most out of those nerfed boosts we have to give up a rig that is 25% of the power and that is assuming it is limited to one per ship.

can someone explain the reasoning to this nerf?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2016-08-30 07:20:10 UTC
Kenneth Fritz wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Kenneth Fritz wrote:


I think this still doesn't address the clustering impact to the boosts for miners which is the biggest downside to the mining boosts in a belt.

If this change incorporated with a 150km optimal range on the capital indy command ship with a 300km range around the target we would have a workable solution. The mining ships have to be able to spread out to work the belt, if you are mining something rare, the roids are spread all over the belt.

I think some of the people claiming to have indy miners only have experience in high sec and don't know how big belts get and how they react to the market to mine what the market demands to keep prices lower for pvp ships and equipment.

There is a elastic pricing model that eve economy modelers aren't factoring in with these changes.



That is a good point. Perhaps a radius of 150k off the target for a total of 300k field of effect as the end game with perfet skills before rigs and implants while sieged. That way those who can afford those undoubtedly expensive items will have a slight edge but not an overwhelmingly one. Then it would be a choice of either staying a bit closer to boost all aspects using different links or ammo. Or, fitting two of the same module loaded with the same ammo in order boost one thing to everyone as they spread out.

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.

If they want these ships available for targets on grid, this is the only hope of theirs t have that happen.

Otherwise, reprocess, wash and repeat.

Rorqs will be a mineral source only.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#439 - 2016-08-30 07:23:47 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.



give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension
The Invited
#440 - 2016-08-30 07:31:48 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.



give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all


Incursion communities

Industry corps

Signal Cartel

Drifter Hive "tours"

Watch me live for all your Empyrean news and analysis!