These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1321 - 2016-09-16 06:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Laurens Punani wrote:
Its not about getting better boosts than an orca... you dont seem to be getting the point. I am totally willing to sell the ships i build and the minerals taht are left over for the same prices as before...
does that mean people with worse boosts get paid significantly less for the same amount of work, risking way more because they dont have enough people to hback them up?
Yes!
Is this a good way of bringing more people into the game?
Only a moron would say yes!

This patch (in the form it is presented right now) just promotes Care-bearing. Rule number 1: Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose
--> Less mining in dangerous space
--> More mining where noone dares to attack them

If you really think you are right, shouldn't Pirate Bounty and LP prices change, depending on how many people generate them out of thin air?
Meaning: If all the miners went ratting the ratting income would drop from 60m isk/hour to 16m isk/hour ?

That would be logical... If a lot of people want to shoot rats, concord does not have to pay as much to get them removed.
Same for incursions...
Also: If you dont like that, go **** yourselves, eve is not here to make you happy :D (actually it is... we are paying CCP to make the game fun for us... if this means balancing things for smaller alliances they should really do that :D )

... LP prices do change based on how many people run them. did you just sleep through economics back in HS?


and do i think adding a goal to work for rather than putting players at end game almost imminently is a good thing? yes that is how you keep people playing.

balancing the game for smaller alliances does not mean small alliances can do everything just as efficiently as large ones. you don't see people complaining that there are not enough titans in the hands of the little guy so ccp should make them easier to build.

this isn't going to be less mining in dangerous space. if these changes do put a major halt on rorq boosts we will see more mining in null do to a lower supply of null ore coming out. It may not be the same people and it may be more ninja mining but the added reward will draw people there.



how about this we are literally going in circles. neither of us will change our minds and we are not adding new points for other people to form opinions off of. how would you say ccp should do this so there is actual risk for the HUGE reward of using a rorq
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1322 - 2016-09-16 06:57:00 UTC
And just to respond to your final comment, this actually reinforces my argument, it doesn't contradict. If ore prices went up and then someone decides to start 35 accounts to take advantage of it, he's killing his own economy and emulating what we have now with the increased yields and driving prices down again
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1323 - 2016-09-16 07:16:25 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
And just to respond to your final comment, this actually reinforces my argument, it doesn't contradict. If ore prices went up and then someone decides to start 35 accounts to take advantage of it, he's killing his own economy and emulating what we have now with the increased yields and driving prices down again



yes... so basically ore prices wont change a lot, right? if they are too high someone will exploit that and drive them back down?
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1324 - 2016-09-16 07:31:56 UTC
No, ore prices will change. You're not measuring ore price in discrete terms of 1 veldspar = 5 isk you are measuring the effort to obtain it.

If it becomes harder to mine, the amount you get for your ore will be the same but you're most likely going to be selling less of it since it became harder to obtain. That's how economies work. A practical real life example would be fruits being more expensive or cheap depending on the season. In summer strawberries are plentiful and cheap in the UK because they grow naturally during that period. In winter they're almost double the price because they're either grown in greenhouses or imported. Simple supply and demand.

If the change meant that somehow people will get less isk for their ore and they're still mining he same amount, then we have a problem, but changing rorquals to be on grid is a global change and will apply to everyone so the entire economy will shift with it after an adjustment period.
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1325 - 2016-09-16 07:46:00 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
No, ore prices will change. You're not measuring ore price in discrete terms of 1 veldspar = 5 isk you are measuring the effort to obtain it.

If it becomes harder to mine, the amount you get for your ore will be the same but you're most likely going to be selling less of it since it became harder to obtain. That's how economies work. A practical real life example would be fruits being more expensive or cheap depending on the season. In summer strawberries are plentiful and cheap in the UK because they grow naturally during that period. In winter they're almost double the price because they're either grown in greenhouses or imported. Simple supply and demand.

If the change meant that somehow people will get less isk for their ore and they're still mining he same amount, then we have a problem, but changing rorquals to be on grid is a global change and will apply to everyone so the entire economy will shift with it after an adjustment period.



how is mining becoming harder for me? not at all... i have enough backup to field a rorqual and yield for hulks is 5% up... also i get mining fighters... if all: its less effort.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1326 - 2016-09-16 12:29:38 UTC
Yet if the end is nigh people are to be believed on average obtaining ore is going to be harder.
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1327 - 2016-09-16 13:53:47 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Yet if the end is nigh people are to be believed on average obtaining ore is going to be harder.



Which is the point... for some it gets a lot easier and for some it gets a lot harder. Right now, having a safe place to mine, getting huge anomalies and having enough paying customers, so you dont actually have to export are the perks of being an industrialist in a big alliance.

The proposed changes, as far as we know, will also add having significantly better boosts. Remember : dont fly what you cant afford to lose --> no indu-core for miners in 50 person alliances.

This is just too much of a benefit for us.
--> Remove the need to siege the rorqual, so even smaller alliances can field them IF they either work on some intel or do the things you proposed earlier, like webbing them or having a cyno ready.

Fact is: small alliances cant defend a rorqual once it's tackled (they cant defend anything to be fair...) , so at least, give them a chance to run before getting tackled :D

ps. If you are fast or catch someone unprepared you might still get a Rorqual-killmail. I found one during WWB, it was a lot of fun ;)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1328 - 2016-09-16 15:29:34 UTC
how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1329 - 2016-09-16 15:56:49 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe



well... i dont really see any semi-aktive PVE alliance without any Sov or any ambitions to get any overroll Pandemic Legion anytime soon :D BUUUUUT for one of the first times in this thread i am close to agreeing with you :-P

The idea is great! Make the rorqual something entirely different from the boosting path! It has mining fighters and can possibly protect the whole Fleet with the PANIC mod. If it mines more than a hulk i might even get 13 of those and put them in a belt. thats something to work towards to, right?

Ratters dont NEED a supercapital, but they WANT one because its cool and does stuff... Why would you connect something as essential as a direct income boost to the, as you like to call it, endgame ship? Those boosts are something everyone should be able to work with. I dont see a reason why my hulk in safe space should be "better" than some small corps hulk.
Having a capital mining ship is something completly different! It is cool, and it does stuff, but it really isn't essential for your mining op:)

ps. There are quite a few titans in this game, but i guess most of them dont get used regularly ;) BUT THEY ARE COOL AND THEY DO STUFF.... SOMETIMES ;)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1330 - 2016-09-16 16:01:59 UTC
... by making the rorq a miner you actually nerf it. let it mine as much as 13 hulks it is now slower than if it was boosting 12 hulks.


there is nothing wrong with this being a booster.

ps i hope you are not disappointed when the excavater drones are not fighters in any way
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1331 - 2016-09-16 16:15:10 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
... by making the rorq a miner you actually nerf it. let it mine as much as 13 hulks it is now slower than if it was boosting 12 hulks.


there is nothing wrong with this being a booster.

ps i hope you are not disappointed when the excavater drones are not fighters in any way



Put the booster into the porpoise and exchange the hulks with something that mines more (a rorqual mining twice as much as a hulk! AWESOMESAUCE #YOLO #IWANTABIGGERSHIP)... not a nerf in my eyes ;)... just a completly different use. if people dont like that, they can still sell the rorqual and continue mining. I bet there are plenty of people who would love to fly nothing but rorquals into a mining anomaly... just picture it. AWESOME! (and something to work towards to)

ps. when they were announced, they were called "fighter-sized mining-drones" hence : mining-fighters ... like fighter-bombers or support-fighters

i know that they wont be able to deal damage ;)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1332 - 2016-09-16 16:21:46 UTC
but its not a different use both just add m3 to a fleet. your way just means people now need several 2.5 bill ships rather than one and a few 200mill ships to get the same effect.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1333 - 2016-09-16 16:24:45 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
how about we give the smaller groups something to work towards you know have some progression maybe

grow bigger? That would solve many problems

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1334 - 2016-09-16 16:30:13 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary...



Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca.





well its really quit simple.... you don't try re-reading this again

Quote:

you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship


now take care to notice that you are not doing anything to an orca but rather changing ships you may be using in your mining fleet



We were discussing the Orca. Read my post again, then explain how decreasing yield on a ship, that has minimal defenses to begin with, that doesn't mine, whose sole purpose in life is to provide boosts and move ore, will get more defenses.


Now I understand CCP wants to balance risk and reward, but instead of shifting to a more balanced game play from what you call "no risk/total reward" (AKA, afk boosting in a POS) it's shifted 100% in the other direction (72km boosting range, and Orca sits in mining anom/belt; Orca cannot defend itself; it suffers from a suspect flag due to "shooting boosts" so it can now be shot at).

This is why I call it a horrible patch. It also reinforces my belief that there are individuals, both players and devs, that are not in touch with in game industry.


Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1335 - 2016-09-16 19:45:27 UTC
He clearly didn't read my orange story
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1336 - 2016-09-17 03:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
they were used that way because players will always chose the option with the least risk. these ships have as much defense as you give them. you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship or do what we do and call on people who are ratting near by should you get caught. these are civilian ships you are going to need military ships to defend them. or skiffs... skiffs are very scary...



Explain to everyone how you give up mining yield on a boosting ship like the Orca.





well its really quit simple.... you don't try re-reading this again

Quote:

you may need to give up yield to put some players in a combat ship


now take care to notice that you are not doing anything to an orca but rather changing ships you may be using in your mining fleet



We were discussing the Orca. Read my post again, then explain how decreasing yield on a ship, that has minimal defenses to begin with, that doesn't mine, whose sole purpose in life is to provide boosts and move ore, will get more defenses.


Now I understand CCP wants to balance risk and reward, but instead of shifting to a more balanced game play from what you call "no risk/total reward" (AKA, afk boosting in a POS) it's shifted 100% in the other direction (72km boosting range, and Orca sits in mining anom/belt; Orca cannot defend itself; it suffers from a suspect flag due to "shooting boosts" so it can now be shot at).

This is why I call it a horrible patch. It also reinforces my belief that there are individuals, both players and devs, that are not in touch with in game industry.





since when does just boosting give it a suspect flag? and we were talking about defending the orca. the orca does not need to defend itself. these ships were already balanced to be put in belts players just opted not to because why risk if you didn't have to. in fact before the mtu orcas were a common sight in belts. So the risk is obviously not to high


EDIT:

with that said should these ships need to be balanced either with RR bonuses or some other form of defense that is fine but lets SEE if that is needed first and not change based on fear mongering speculations
S3ND3TH
Czerka.
What Could Possibly Go Wr0ng
#1337 - 2016-09-17 03:45:48 UTC
I'm with Balder


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.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1338 - 2016-09-17 03:56:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
S3ND3TH wrote:
I'm with Balder


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.




if you don't have enough to feel safe using it use the new one they are adding. it's only a what 5% dip?

also why are you becoming suspect fozzie even said they are not sure if combat boosts will flag you....
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1339 - 2016-09-17 04:25:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

if you don't have enough to feel safe using it use the new one they are adding. it's only a what 5% dip?



It's quite a bit more than that. The numbers have been posted already and we're talking on the order of roughly 10% to 20% loss compared to what we were previously getting. The range boost loss is a good example:

Previous: 25.7km

Now: 23km

25.7-23=2.7 or roughly a 10.5% loss in range.


Now if this is supposed to HELP miners, and new players that want to mine, I want the devs to explain how the loss is supposed to help. The numbers and math don't lie.



Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

also why are you becoming suspect fozzie even said they are not sure if combat boosts will flag you....




These are active boosts, which means you're basically "shooting" them from the new high slot boosting device. Now the way I understand this is if you shoot the boosts, it's a form of combat the way current game mechanics work, and will flag you as suspect. Even Fozzie isn't sure that you won't get flagged suspect, so that tells you:

1. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been the subject of serious thought.

2. This new boosting mechanic has NOT been prepared for testing, and has clearly NOT been tested otherwise Fozzie and the groupies would know.

3. The balance of game play using an Orca has gone from no risk/high reward to high risk/low reward. Unless the Orca gets a major update, no one will use the Orca for boosts because no one wants to lose a boost fitted Orca worth at least 1.5b ISK. In effect, CCP has done to the Orca what it's done to the Rorqual.


Lugh Crow-Slave
#1340 - 2016-09-17 04:36:10 UTC
yet people already use boost fit orcas in belts -.-

and by "not sure" its not they don't know how the server will treat it but that they are not sure if they are going to make it so you go suspect.