These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1441 - 2016-09-28 15:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Ollyander wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something



Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out?



that 300mil ship is not added risk for the added reward of the boost


if you want to add risk to the gankers put alts/friends in combat ships and give up some yield for the added safety

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1442 - 2016-09-28 17:39:29 UTC
Back to yield again?

We're not talking about yield with a barge or exhumer. We're discussing putting an Orca into a belt or mining anom.

No one is going to bring ganking Catalysts when they know a properly fit exhumer can tank the DPS.


The Orca, on the other hand, might be able to tank ganking Catalysts, but I don't see how it's going to tank a few frigs with webs and scrams while Tier 3 BC's (Tornado, Naga, Oracle, Talos) can sit at 100km and just start blapping it once CONCORD arrives for the frigs.

As for the Nightmare, my bad I haven't had my coffee ... it's the Nighthawk. When's the last time you saw one of those actually in combat? Or how about any T2 BC Command Ship? You don't see any of the command ships actually in combat because the kill mail would be trolled until TQ was shut down.

As for the suspect flag, this is taken from the dev blog post:

Quote:

Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.



Weapons timers have always thrown a suspect flag, so CCP needs to address that.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1443 - 2016-09-28 20:54:24 UTC
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but a boosting Orca only needs to be in belt for as long as it takes to warp out again.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
darrtan
Death by Design.
#1444 - 2016-09-28 21:06:51 UTC
the way it stands as of now on SISI, is best. If they would leave it where you had to pick and chose two bust boosters, and one+ passive, and just add new skills to the leadership skill list to buff the Burst modules. then the off grid booster for the miners would not be effected, but if you wanted to highers boost then put a boosting desi (or bigger) on field to boost yield. as far as big fleets good, with current ranges 50km with no skill boost, if you are further than that you have bigger issues than boosting. the math works out that on grid boosting is going to be better for fleet fights than off grid. and i agree with dropping the buffs on Titans, as if you have a Titan in system" you win". so please CCP keep as is and just add in the new boosters, people in boosters now would not mind to much to learn a few new skills for on grid. and the miners would love to still be able to use off grid.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1445 - 2016-09-28 21:34:58 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:

As for the Nightmare, my bad I haven't had my coffee ... it's the Nighthawk. When's the last time you saw one of those actually in combat? Or how about any T2 BC Command Ship? You don't see any of the command ships actually in combat because the kill mail would be trolled until TQ was shut down.


Wut?

I can tell you for a fact that the Sleipnir is absolutely viable as a doctrine fleet ship. It's pretty good! And it's trivial to modify the standard doctrine fit into a boosting ship with only a minor modification of the mods (drop from 5 to 4 turrets, replace 1 gyro with a power diag, from memory).

The Nighthawk is bad, but I've seen Vulture fleets, and I've also seen Absos in smaller gangs.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
#1446 - 2016-09-28 23:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ollyander
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Ollyander wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

as for how mining and combat links are the same that is irrelevant you should not be able to gain something w/o risking something



Pretty sure, my 300 mil ship sitting in a belt mining counts as a risk. How about increased risk/penalties to gankers to balance this out?



that 300mil ship is not added risk for the added reward of the boost


if you want to add risk to the gankers put alts/friends in combat ships and give up some yield for the added safety



Lets consider risk vs reward. Presently as a Miner I am risking my 300 mil ship, in exchange for small amounts of ore. My Orca does not need to be risked currently, this is being changed, thus adding risk, while not increasing reward.

Gankers currently risk their ship, for a Catalyst, at best its going to be 10 mil, 2 gankers 20 mil max. Their reward a 300 mil killmail. This puts the risk/reward entirely on the side of the gankers. With the changes, their risks are not increasing, just their potential rewards. Again, lets talk risk/reward. With these changes, shouldn't the risk/reward equation be adjusted from the other side for balance?

How about adjusting the mining barges and ships to require more then just 2 gankers, but an actual gang? Require them to invest more gank ships, more people, more time for their killmail reward.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1447 - 2016-09-29 01:59:26 UTC
lol the problem is that you were getting to much reward for no risk. and it already takes more than 2 gankers to kill a proc

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Bowbndr
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1448 - 2016-09-29 02:33:52 UTC
Ok let me get this straight. Off grid mining boosts are so disruptive to game play you have to patch the game for it , but in 5 years you cant figure out how to fix cloaky camping???

And you STILL want everyo e to believe your not Targeting the miners. CCP is extreamily dence for a bunch of suposedly "smart" people.

So when accounts start dropping again what is the next option nuki g industry all together?

I have a novel idea, how about CCP stop tring to kill mining and industry, and put the game back to ho it was when there was 35k plus logged in o. A regular basis and 50 to 60k on the weekends. Then you MIGHT swing back towards profitable instead of the slow death the game is currently on.

Say what you will but you dident have to "CREATE" drama back then, just lat the players play the gane.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1449 - 2016-09-29 02:51:19 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Mining is a different style of game play, which is what really surprises me that a lot of people cannot grasp ... including the devs.
Yet the differences really have no meaning here. We're not changing mining. What being changed is boosting. And boosting functions the same either way. You're providing a series of benefits to a group of ships, which is no different between mining or other boosts.

Balder Verdandi wrote:
If you can tell me how mining boosts are equal to combat boosts and logi boosts, then let's discuss it. I have yet to see anyone present legitimate talking points on this topic, other than whining that it gives miners "no risk/all reward". Command boosts from a Nightmare are the same way; the Nightmare safes up and you never see it in combat, but it's providing combat boosts to a fleet. Where is the outrage? I haven't seen it.
Then you haven't been looking, and are willfully blind regarding the scope of the very thread you're currently reading because CHANGING THAT MECHANIC IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHANGE IS ABOUT.

Balder Verdandi wrote:
For the Orca .... this ship needs a lot of love for this change and I don't see it coming at all, except in the form of another ship (the Porpoise) which doesn't address the concerns the mining community is posting.

Fly an Orca on a regular basis and you'll see how much risk there is with an 800 million ISK giant flying bath tub, that needs another 500 million in fittings, has minimal offensive/defensive capabilities, and it's still a giant flying bath tub.
You're confusing the word "needs" with "can be fit with." There's no need to spend 500mill on a fit. Regarding the complaints, what's being brought up is largely just wanting an exception to maintain the current state of operation in both terms of utility and safety. That's not really a reason not to do it.

Balder Verdandi wrote:
Meanwhile, no one wants to discuss how to make the Orca able to defend itself if it's going to be sitting in a mining anom or belt, but we get the Porpoise instead? This doesn't make any sense at all.

The devs still haven't really addressed the "shooting" of bursts/boosts and not going suspect. Again, this doesn't make any sense because if you're going to replace one system of providing boosts with another that now provides bursts you shouldn't have to worry about losing a 1.5 billion ISK fitted Orca to a suspect timer. This flips the "no risk/all reward" to "all risk/minimal reward".

Let's have an adult discussion about this since CCP made it so we could boost from a POS, and now they want to change the way the game is played but won't fix the booster ships.
The orca is a mining booster and hold. It's ok for it not to be a combat ship just like the ships it boosts aren't necessarily geared for combat.

Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1450 - 2016-09-29 02:54:59 UTC
Bowbndr wrote:
Ok let me get this straight. Off grid mining boosts are so disruptive to game play you have to patch the game for it , but in 5 years you cant figure out how to fix cloaky camping???

And you STILL want everyo e to believe your not Targeting the miners. CCP is extreamily dence for a bunch of suposedly "smart" people.

So when accounts start dropping again what is the next option nuki g industry all together?

I have a novel idea, how about CCP stop tring to kill mining and industry, and put the game back to ho it was when there was 35k plus logged in o. A regular basis and 50 to 60k on the weekends. Then you MIGHT swing back towards profitable instead of the slow death the game is currently on.

Say what you will but you dident have to "CREATE" drama back then, just lat the players play the gane.

This posts would totally make sense if it were just related to mining boosts. Nevermind the changes to combat boosts. That's just collateral damage we're dealing with to target those pesky miners.
Ollyander
Caliburn Ghast
#1451 - 2016-09-29 03:04:41 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
lol the problem is that you were getting to much reward for no risk. and it already takes more than 2 gankers to kill a proc


Depends on the skills and the fit. If you have the skills, and the proc is fitted for maxmining, then yes 2 skilled pilots can kill it. Tank fit, takes more. Covetor though, is a thin skin, takes 1.

Regardless though, risk/reward equation, the risk is being significantly boosted, without a corresponding boost to reward. And my earlier point stands, lets have some balance. If you must boost risk, then either increase the reward, or increase the risk for those trying to gank.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1452 - 2016-09-29 03:08:37 UTC
lol if the risk/reward was not balanced then you will not see added reward for added risk. right now there is too much reward for too little risk

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1453 - 2016-09-29 03:12:16 UTC
Not sure if this is the best place for this since its feedback about something on SiSi

I was there looking at the new boosts for tomorrow's test - and noted that all of the ammo charges for bursts have the same artwork icon - looks like iron hybrid charges iirc.

I hope that CCP is planing on making something so its a bit easier to spot these quickly either by color or some type of icon/artwork, since its likely that someone may have several different types on board now and reading is .... well.... hard....

Cheers
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1454 - 2016-09-29 03:16:47 UTC
you want to know what would be a great place for that regan? the test server feed back section. in fact they have a sticky thread just for it with a little "known issues" section that covers your concerns

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1455 - 2016-09-29 03:18:57 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
you want to know what would be a great place for that regan? the test server feed back section. in fact they have a sticky thread just for it with a little "known issues" section that covers your concerns


Ohh perfect just went there ... thx
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1456 - 2016-09-29 19:07:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?





See my quote of the dev blog:

Quote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.



CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts.

If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc..

This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway.

Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it.


It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right.

At this point, it's clearly not right.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1457 - 2016-09-29 19:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?





See my quote of the dev blog:

Quote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.



CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts.

If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc..

This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway.

Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it.


It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right.

At this point, it's clearly not right.
No, you've got weapons timer mechanic completely wrong. I get a weapons timer every time I activate a bastion module but I'm most definitely NOT suspect.

They have addressed going suspect specifically in a subsequent post with a leaning towards not doing it, but the quote from the blog in no way suggest going suspect because again, weapons timers and going suspect are NOT the same thing.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1458 - 2016-09-29 19:24:59 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Also, wasn't the last word on the idea of going suspect that leanings were towards not making that the case?





See my quote of the dev blog:

Quote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute. The area covered by the burst is clearly indicated by their visual effect.



CCP hasn't addressed this since it's not updated the blog, which is one of the bigger issues/complaints that I have with the new bursts.

If you're going to be hit with a weapons timer, that means you're going to go suspect just like if you shot someone with guns, lasers, missiles, drones, webs, scrams, etc..

This is why I'm saying this "concept" hasn't been thought out, tested properly, or even remotely ready for testing on SiSi. My biggest fear is this will turn into another "User Inventory" fiasco where testers told CCP it was bad and it got pushed to TQ anyway.

Then CCP spent another 9 months fixing it.


It doesn't matter if you're a casual miner like myself, or a high speed low drag industrialist sitting behind a giant blue donut. If it's not right, it's not right.

At this point, it's clearly not right.



please learn crime watch and any other game mechanic before posting about it

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mr Justice T
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1459 - 2016-09-29 20:00:04 UTC
We need:
(i) timers by burst icon separate for every kind of boost,
(ii) separate menu for person in fleet who will coordinate burst with:
- timers for every boost,
- info who is probiding boost,
- info how may ppl in fleet are under the boost,
- some alert that boost is ending - maybe 10 sec before its end.
Big smile
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#1460 - 2016-09-29 20:01:05 UTC
https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203208932-Weapon-and-Logoff-Timers

Also known as Weapons Flag,
this flag becomes active when you activate any offensive module (weapons, stasis webifier etc.) upon another player.

Some non-targeted modules, such as smartbombs or Bastion Modules, will also cause a weapons flag when activated.

Regardless of the Security status of the solar system, having an active Weapons Flag will prevent you from docking in any station, jumping through stargate, ejecting from or boarding another ship while in space, and storing a ship in a corporation or fleet hangar.

This flag lasts for 60 seconds, starting from the moment you open fire, and will renew each time you take further offensive action – meaning that you will have to wait a full 60 seconds after the last offensive action before being able to dock, jump etc. (even if you lose your ship).