These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#721 - 2016-08-31 00:06:39 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.


Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#722 - 2016-08-31 00:08:31 UTC
Krystyn wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging.


I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits.
If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed.
Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back.

It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Zifrian
Aideron Robotics
#723 - 2016-08-31 00:10:18 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Krystyn wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging.


I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits.
If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed.
Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back.

It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change.

I suggested this earlier as well.

Can't think of what it would be like to mine in a wormhole.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#724 - 2016-08-31 00:14:16 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
All of the buff duration skills make it look like they're going to last significantly longer than module cycle times. That, at least, is at least interesting and good from a gameplay perspective. Fozzie, can you confirm? Also, a specific "Fleet command at 4" number for how long the buffs last would be pretty good. Not saying its because I have FC at 4, but... :P


The only way making the cycle times longer than they're talking about making them now is if they make the pre-or-post-ship-hull-bonused boost effect duration longer as well, yeah. Otherwise, big gaps in coverage.

I believe duration boosting is handled elsewhere, from what I remember in the blog, Leadership/WC/FC only affect the range, so FC 4 would put you at NEAR-max range (so like 56km instead of 58km with otherwise-maxed Command Ship)?

My booster alt is FC 3, so I'm right there just behind ya. :)

Tau Cabalander wrote:
I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.


There won't be 3 strip miner ships any longer since they're upping the proc/skiff from 1 to 2, keeping the ret/mack at 2, and reducing the cov/hulk from 3 to 2, so... both strips should be okay, no more triple cap hit from covetor/hulk strip activation.

Tau Cabalander wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
ยน damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here?


Effect is the noun (subject or recipient of the action)
Affect is the verb (action).

I remember: "The effect" and "To affect".


Yep. For example...

"The November 2016 EVE update is going to affect anyone who uses a fleet booster ship at all, be it combat or mining."

vs.

"I am/am not looking forward to the effects of the November 2016 EVE update on my fleet booster ship(s)."
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#725 - 2016-08-31 00:14:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Sylvia Kildare wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS.


Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).

For what it is worth:

Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!
CCP Larrikin on behalf of Team Five-0 wrote:
No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity

Yes, titans can be tackled by enough Rifters, or jammed by enough Falcons. We've got some interesting mechanics for this and I'll go through them one by one -

Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Heavy Interdictors with a focus point will work as they do now, as will bubbles.

I don't think the Rorqual's reconfiguration animation is compatible with a 1 minute siege, though I'm all for that, even at the expense of removing the reconfiguration.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#726 - 2016-08-31 00:18:16 UTC
I love seeing all of the tears from people that KNEW for years that they were abusing a broken system whose days were numbered and are now threatening to unsubscribe over the most needed balance change since the nerf to (original) AoE doomsdays.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#727 - 2016-08-31 00:20:37 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.


Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.


So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.

They don't eff the usefulness of your boost alts, they force you to actually put them in harm's way. Heaven forbid you actually have to be actively playing to have any impact on other players.

Man... I wish I could have a FAX sitting safe at a friendly POS repping people's shields far away in the system without actually putting it at risk
Man... I wish I could have my Dread sitting safe at a friendly POS while still pounding away at a hostile POS in system somewhere without putting it at risk
Man... I wish I could have my Rorq sitting safe at a friendly POS vastly increasing the mining yield of every miner in the system without putting it at risk

These are all capital ships which have a big impact on a fleet's performance. Nobody is forcing you to use them, but they are amazing force multipliers. Whether they are killing enemies, repping friendlies, or increasing isk earned, they shouldn't be able to do so from afar where nobody has a chance of stopping them.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#728 - 2016-08-31 00:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Pandora Deninard
Moraguth wrote:

So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.


What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****.

To clarify, since you can't read apparently, I wouldn't fly the ship. I would want all that SP back, because it would be useless + wasted SP under this new system. I'm not saying they shouldn't go ahead with these proposed changes, I'm just saying I would want my SP back because it no longer does what I spent months training for it to do.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#729 - 2016-08-31 00:26:22 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:
Sylvia Kildare wrote:
*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all.

Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so.
Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now.
To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo.


Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.

The main issues people were having with off-grid links seems to have been in the arena of lowsec PVP. Lowsec CSM candidates in the past few years often speak about feeling left out with CCP paying attention to WH/null/highsec concerns, but this change seems catered to lowsec specifically.

Whether or not it was a majority or minority of the entire playerbase (not just lowsec) wanting these changes may not make a difference in the greater scheme of things and in the end as to whether CCP changes things or not, but since Fozzie did say their 4th dev blog would take into account feedback to this first dev blog and then the 2nd and 3rd ones about mining/combat changes specifically... seems to me that while it's not simple CCP putting out a poll saying "yes/no/maybe later in a different way" to these changes where it can just be like an election, they still do care about players' opinions.

But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs:::

Just wanted to respond to a lot of people in this forum thread implying (if not flat out saying) that everyone wanted this, as that's just not true, nothing to do with for CCP's benefit.

GeeBee wrote:
Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.

Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.

Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.


If they did that, they'd better buff the hell out of command ships tank/DPS/application-wise, then... some sort of unholy HAC/Marauder hybrid. I mean... there's 2 or more tech 2 variants of frigs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships... but just ONE kind of tech 2 battlecruiser, so... if boosts went away, give us better tech 2 battlecruiser action, CCPls! :D
lord xavier
Rubbed Out
#730 - 2016-08-31 00:26:43 UTC
Quote:
Amarr Effect Generator: +Capacitor, -Speed, -EM Resistances, +Kinetic Resistances
Minmatar Effect Generator: -Signature Radius, -Turret Optimal Range, -Explosive Resistances, +Thermal Resistances


Lol This has to be the best part of the entire blog. The minmatar effect is so terrible people will be self-destructing ragnaroks in protest.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#731 - 2016-08-31 00:31:52 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.


Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.



The Rorqual costs about as much as the Moros.

Both are pathetic ships unless anchored in space for five minutes.

Both are extremely powerful ships if used well.

The difference is that fielding a Moros provides intel to other players that want an expensive killmail that their structure is being shot by an expensive ship. Fielding a Rorqual doesn't feed anyone any intel unless you are an idiot about it.

The Rorqual will remain an excellent ship at its niches - providing incredible support to mining operations deep in your space that you are willing to actively defend, and providing high-risk high-impact support to mining operations you are willing to try to hide from your enemies.

And it will remain useless for some niches too. The Moros is a terrible ship for running level 5 missions (which doesn't make it a bad ship). The Rorqual is a terrible ship for providing support to mining operations on the border of your space.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#732 - 2016-08-31 00:31:57 UTC
In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:

1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.

2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.

Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different.
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#733 - 2016-08-31 00:33:51 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Moraguth wrote:

So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.


What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****.

To clarify, since you can't read apparently, I wouldn't fly the ship. I would want all that SP back, because it would be useless + wasted SP under this new system. I'm not saying they shouldn't go ahead with these proposed changes, I'm just saying I would want my SP back because it no longer does what I spent months training for it to do.


To be clear, you said
Pandora Deninard wrote:


Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.


"... and if I were a rorqual pilot, I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP"

But what you said in response was much more clear, although very different.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#734 - 2016-08-31 00:43:31 UTC
These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.

It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#735 - 2016-08-31 00:45:32 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:

1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.

2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.

Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different.



If you want the power boost provided by a Rorqual, you need to undock and use a Rorqual.

If you can't afford to risk a Rorqual, or you are unwilling to risk one, why should you get the benefits of one?

People risk more expensive ships then the Rorqual every minute. Whether it's a ratting Nyx, a transport Erebus or a driveby doomsday Avatar, people are willing to put their expensive ships at risk to reap the rewards.

If the Rorqual isn't at risk it should have no effect in space, just like a docked up Moros.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Denavit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#736 - 2016-08-31 00:45:49 UTC
So much tears and peanut brained people. Lol stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus...
Jon Krab
Living Off The Land
Intaki-Business Logistics Union
#737 - 2016-08-31 00:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jon Krab
I like these changes. The advantages given to pilots with OGBs were not proportional to the risk taken by running the OGBs. Putting the boosts on grid improves visibility as to how many pilots someone is engaging which improves small-scale and solo PvP immensely. Thankyou.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#738 - 2016-08-31 00:57:04 UTC
Sylvia Kildare wrote:
Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).


Only supercapitals.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#739 - 2016-08-31 00:58:54 UTC
Denavit wrote:
So much tears and peanut brained people. Lol stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus...


That's exactly what they're doing: trying to find a new and better way to revamp boosts. When the devs ask for feedback, giving honest feedback is constructive. Telling people not to give that feedback is expressly working against trying to help the devs get the best exchange of ideas possible.
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#740 - 2016-08-31 00:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Fritz
Moraguth wrote:
These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.

It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.



I see what you're getting at but you chose a poor source for your analogy. A rorque is stupifyingly easier to kill than a titan. So while yes for in grid boosting, some serious looks into how the mechanics are actually going to work are needed. And since they have already changed some things since the initial announcement, [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6614670#post6614670[/url] I have some hope for thhe final product in November.

Who's your end of the world buddy?