These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#881 - 2016-09-01 16:33:24 UTC
I think there isn't enough counterplay still. I would like the links to be a Hic style bubble with a short cycle (5 seconds maybe) so that neuting can be a possibility. Use scripts instead of fuel

Maybe sensor damps could have a script that reduces boost range also

Art of Explosions
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#882 - 2016-09-01 17:15:29 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
I think there isn't enough counterplay still. I would like the links to be a Hic style bubble with a short cycle (5 seconds maybe) so that neuting can be a possibility. Use scripts instead of fuel

Maybe sensor damps could have a script that reduces boost range also


welp killing the booster first seems be the most straight counterplay that comes to mind

as with making it short cycle HIC style buble it would practically kill at least one possibility for miners I can see with current proposal of command burst mechanics....
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#883 - 2016-09-01 17:17:08 UTC
Using a quote from the Dev Blog:

Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power


And this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations.

Generally in a mining fleet you have:


  1. One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.

  2. One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.

  3. At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.



Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca.

Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles.


Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals.


I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost.




At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#884 - 2016-09-01 17:17:30 UTC
Killing the booster is often not an option due to how much tank they can get, plus they are almost always on a logistics watchlist

Art of Explosions
Ded Akara
Doomheim
#885 - 2016-09-01 17:20:02 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Using a quote from the Dev Blog:

Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power


And this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations.

Generally in a mining fleet you have:


  1. One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.

  2. One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.

  3. At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.



Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca.

Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles.


Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals.


I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost.




At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.


You forget how easy it will be to bump the booster away too. At leasty if they're using a big slow Orca anyway.
Oobleck Yokian
The three Rabbi Commercial Artel
#886 - 2016-09-01 17:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Oobleck Yokian
OK CCP, u are making smth wrong

(sry for all mistakes, mein English is so so)
This post will consist of 2 parts, first - brief history of our corp, second - my list of troubles and offers to/of currently supposed future mechanics.

PART1
My corporation lives in wh, doing so for ... over 4 years at least. Main fun thing - roam nulls or wh`s. Not so far ago we was forced to move out of c5-c5 (not cause of lost POS, but because of lack isk/h and isk/danger changes due to wh drifters announcement), with this one went another trouble - we literally lost SP`s that was in capital ships (i know it`s not direct CCP fault, but still) cause drifters are no match to what it was. So. We left c5 and now are living in c2-c5, farming c5 and still - roaming nulls and whs. Not so far ago we decided to buy Link Alt (cost 16b), so that we can participate in more pvp (cause as usual, people are too afraid of pvp`ing while there is still a chance to die). After this announcment, its clear like a day that with currents stats Smaaall scale (1-3 people + bonus) pvp gonna have a bad day. It will NOT be(this one is for CCP Fozzie statement about not returning SP) the same thing we payed 16b for, it will be just flying hull with no skills to do the work right. For the same price we could bought gay-cloack-falcon alt or smth, so that we could be in-grid, as CCP wants.

PART2 - list of what is wrong and list of suggestion

What is basicly not ok, to my mind (yes, i understand that ccp wanna give players some options against bonus, BUT)


  1. FW warriors still can boost themself`s near station to gain some advantage, so can do null home camping ppl as well
  2. Solo and small gangs (1-3 ppl) will be greatly nerfed (while mid-large scale ones arent), entire solo based pvp against blob will be ripped of. blobs-blobs-blobs, the game will be about blobes.
  3. In grid full shield sleipnir will cause brave pvp`s not to undock 2-4 ships on 1, as now, but 8-10 (blobs!) (cyno that ***er)
  4. warp-in/warp-out tactis - best way to implement new mechanics! why not to make then so that scan ships cant scan in cloack? more in grid mechanics!
  5. God tier anchor based strategy for fleets - the skill, THE SKILL!
  6. i bet thousands of links alts will be сut in skill injectors (got u, this is ur real plan), so that mains can sit on bonuses while they still can be usefull (like rly)
  7. another super tactic - be full tanked turtle, so if turtle cant tank, neither ship in gang can - (with LEEEEROYY JENKINS voice) "REWAAAAAAARP"


so my offers are

  1. fleet sized based range on links - the smaller gang, the further links are working (so that there still be a space to solo pilots to operate with almost usless links, while still being kind`a in safe position)
  2. system based range of link - the more safer is system (hs-low-null-wh), the closer links should work
  3. rethink ur system (yep, all of it), do the opposite, make modules that TURNS OFF links on ships in some area
  4. make links like tether mechanics, if u are near them - u got links, if not - u`re not. it will at least solve 1st problem.
  5. make people decide, whether to rellocate SP on the same char or not (it changes A LOT, Fozzie, like A LOT)


The most disheartening thing of this patch is that it only gives opportunities to the mid sized groupes, so that they can easily kill other bonuses, while having theirs safe with logi/self tank/just over blobbing. The entire small scale/solo pvp will suffer from it, as now u need to fly 1-2 hours to get some fair pvp (where u can die, and ur opponents as well), after the patch it`ll be x2. Now u can simply detect those links if u got hands, if u`ll say - "poor known space ppl cant into d`scan" i say - "its their fault, why cant u click d`scan or simply watch what goes in ur system? there is A LOCAL maaaan~, there is no such a thing in wh and we are ok with that. System should encourage ppl to use all possible sources of information, and not help them, when they are simply too lazy to do so".

Aaaand thats it.

Thanks for ur time :-*
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#887 - 2016-09-01 17:39:40 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Using a quote from the Dev Blog:

Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power


And this is where I truly believe CCP has no clue about mining and/or mining operations.

Generally in a mining fleet you have:


  1. One "Booster" toon - can be either an alt or an AFK player, because no one is just going to sit in space doing nothing ... which is why they sit inside the POS shields.

  2. One "Hauler" toon - because the nerf to the ore hold on the Hulk makes it necessary to dump into a fleet hangar or jet-can to a dedicated hauler like the Miasmos.

  3. At least 2 or 3 miners - usually looking at a minimum of three miners to make it profitable.



Now if we're going to "allow" counter-play I want CCP to explain how the risk is appropriate when a boosting Orca costs over 1 billion ISK fitted, but the "enemies involved" can field a fleet that costs significantly less than that with enough DPS to blow up a boosting Orca.

Honeslty, there isn't enough CPU/PG on a Orca to allow on grid boosting AND have a fit that can warp away from incoming hostiles.


Then we look at how the new on grid boosts go into effect, where you're basically "shooting" fleet mates to give them boosts but could trigger aggression so it makes the boosting pilot a suspect. This totally defeats the purpose of providing mining boosts because now you're a suspect and can be shot at by neutrals.


I really don't think anyone has actually sat down and looked at it from the point of view of a miner/booster, much less an industrial corp, and asked them what they need, how they do mining ops, and what they would like in changes for boost.




At this point, I might just pull that SP from my toons and forget about mining/boosting altogether, since there is far too much risk and no reward.



firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command

secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog

thirdly - some math:

sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk

for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]

with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts

also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....
Beta Maoye
#888 - 2016-09-01 17:54:55 UTC
Booster parked at safe spot. Buffed up attackers. Tackler bumps/scrambles target. Buffed attackers warp to kill and then warp back to booster for buff. Wait for another target to appear.

Same as before that targets are neutralized without the booster on-grid.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#889 - 2016-09-01 17:57:56 UTC
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:


firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command

secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog

thirdly - some math:

sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk

for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]

with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts

also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....



Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual.


The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs.

Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded.

Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#890 - 2016-09-01 18:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:


firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command

secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog

thirdly - some math:

sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk

for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]

with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts

also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....



Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual.


The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs.

Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded.

Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.



... or instead of an mwd you could oh idk fit a web or two to the miners?

but i may just be crazy

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
leyo690
Asocial Club
#891 - 2016-09-01 18:22:00 UTC
so , Here is the end of a teen-years generation of players, accused to use links to boost the power of their ships. A good part of them abused of it, i totally agree. Another part of them intended to maintain a rumour... "the few against the many"... and they will now leave the game.
We loose those who was giving their best to spread and keep up the necessary hope in all eve players for them to renew their sub, since years ago.

Obviously, we're facing no more than someone who needs kind of a revenge. rage. a very old rage. It comes along with a free-to-play eve model, bringing up alienation at its best.
We can see that players who are opposed to this link suppression, tell it with calm. That's because they have already forgot the game. For the best pleasure of Fozzie " i don't mind loosing a part of players if i can earn many others". From where i come we have an expression that could be translated by "you only know what you are loosing, not what you will earn".

CCP ignores all the deceptions here, supported by players who never opened themselves to indivudal skills and creativity.

I feel pretty lucky to have lost interest for Eve and gaming a year ago, and i keep the best memories of gaming experience i could have with this game and the guys i met in it.. Eve is another place that have been corrupted now, which is the sad part we'll have to remember now when we'll be thinking about good old times in Eve.

Long life to this brilliant CCP 2016 team..
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#892 - 2016-09-01 18:38:53 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Killing the booster is often not an option due to how much tank they can get, plus they are almost always on a logistics watchlist

That seems fine to me. Tough tank issues like that are not unique to command ships, and in those codes its best to find the weakest link and start from there.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#893 - 2016-09-01 18:45:09 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Killing the booster is often not an option due to how much tank they can get, plus they are almost always on a logistics watchlist

That seems fine to me. Tough tank issues like that are not unique to command ships, and in those codes its best to find the weakest link and start from there.


not only that it isn't even that they are "unkillable" but rather there are better targets where you will get more out of your dps

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#894 - 2016-09-01 19:43:14 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:


firstly of all - we will get smaller cheaper industrial command

secondly - there are annoucned changes to orca which will be revealed in later dev blog

thirdly - some math:

sure currently there is usually one orca per fleet, but considering potency of fully upgraded orca booster I do agree with people saying that in current state it's all profit, little to not risk

for the case of your hulk mining operation: it is not sure before the porpoise stats will be announced, but it is likely that under new system [or actually any booster I think even orca should be able to pull it out] the booster ship will be capable of being at same point hauling ship [maxed boosts lingers for 90 seconds according to the devblog and you can reapply them every minute]

with current system booster for obvious reasons cannot be a hauler because on attempt of docking it will cease to provide boosts

also with 30 seconds of buffer between reactivation timer and bonuses falloff it may be possible [too lazy to run that math now :P] to keep multiple belts buffed, and hauled, with amounts of booster ships lesser than amounts of belts, so it won;t be as bad as some here tries to portrait it....



Let's start with what we know, since nothing about the Porpoise has been released, along with any updates for the Orca or the Rorqual.


The Orca, when fit properly for boosting, eats up almost all the CPU/PG. This is using all three T2 links, large ACR/CCC and large fuel nozzle rigs.

Once you look at the CPU/PG used, it means that even with rigs you cannot fit it for a MWD pulse for a fast align and warp out because it lacks PG. This forces you into a tank fit where you lose space in the main cargohold and gain an incredibly slow warp out. Running the tank fit, you'll need at least 2 cycles with an overloaded AB, or three cycles on the AB when not overloaded.

Factor in a suspect flag and there is no balance to risk versus reward ... it's all risk.



The point you are constantly missing that for what we KNOW now, there WILL be changed to orca AND rorqual and ontop of that there will be new cheap ship for miner boosting [about which we already know that is named porpoise, we know from command bursts blog what bonuses regardning command bursts it will have and that it will have pricetag of t1 battleruiser] which will be covered in one of next devblogs.

so point is, that because we know there WILL be changes, let us wait patiently to see what changes they have up their mind AND THEN only start considering crying on how they are killing mining m'kay?
Tanner Marqual
Non Igitur Obicere
#895 - 2016-09-01 19:58:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
So, skill bonuses completely removed?


Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.


I think the loss of passive skill boosts pulls an enjoyable and beneficial feature away from newer / more casual players. With the passive boosts no special ships or modules are needed and a small group of new players can all jump in their ventures or rifters or whatever and see a tangible benefit from fleeting up with a small amount of training. I fully agree OGB needs to go away but the loss of passive skills boosts seems to be overkill.

Bah, I don't sign anything...
Tanner Marqual
Non Igitur Obicere
#896 - 2016-09-01 20:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanner Marqual
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vidork Drako wrote:
Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. Lol

Now a question who will come back again and again until we got an answer :

Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?

Lets us know please. A simple yes or no will be enough.

No. 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.

[snip]...


Skill point refunds most definitely need to be an option, especially if the passive buffs go. The proposed changes create a significantly different dynamic, one in which no benefit can be realized until your boosting character is sitting in a ship with at least one of the new modules fitted.

Also, what happened to the mining yield boost from the Mining Foreman skill and the agility boost from the skirmish warfare skill? It doesn't appear to have been integrated into the new modules. In the current system those passive boosts are always available regardless of which links are used. Now you only get them when you are using the link associated with them, providing their buff was actually carried over to one of the new links.

This is the second time I've been caught up in CCP making a sweeping change to game dynamics that alters my game experience. I had researched setting up a POS and spent time working towards that and was just about to pull the trigger when Citadels came out and the bar was significantly raised. Now 10 months into training a leadership alt everything changes again. I want to learn a system once, incorporate it into my gameplay, then just play. My poor tired old brain isn't up to learning a new set of rules every few months. I really wish CCP had just modified the scope of all boosts and changed them from being system wide to grid wide. That would have resolved the main OGB issue.

Bah, I don't sign anything...
Lunarstorm95
Godless Horizon.
OnlyFleets.
#897 - 2016-09-01 21:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunarstorm95
Considering only high sec carebears are mad about these changes this is a really good step for pvp in all aspects.

Im not a fan of the possible t3 cloaky nulli drive-by boosts, but that requires 100% attentiveness form the pilot so it may not be that bad.


+1 for SP refund. Its a whole new mechanic. On that isn't usable by many. Having WC 5 FC 4 id like to actually be able to make use of the SP i spent months training

“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.” ― Robert A. Heinlein "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." ― Confucius 
Lugh Crow-Slave
#898 - 2016-09-01 21:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
am i the only one who has noticed that the numbers in the blog for max value with skills/ships/plants don't add up?

some have a higher base value yet lower max? even though ships skills and plants are giving the same bonus and there is a new rig that gives a 25%

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#899 - 2016-09-01 21:52:50 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
am i the only one who has noticed that the numbers in the blog for max value with skills/ships/plants don't add up?

Which ones?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#900 - 2016-09-01 21:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Rowells wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
am i the only one who has noticed that the numbers in the blog for max value with skills/ships/plants don't add up?

Which ones?


just use passive defense as an example

it now gets 2% more to its base over current T2

t2 bc still give 3%
plant still gives 25%
skill still gives 10%
now therethe t2 mods 25%
yet the max value is lower than on tq

EDIT

21.56dev blog vs 25.9old

the e-war is even further off with a 1% more to the base but with over a 10% lower than on tq 24.26devblog vs 34.5old

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble