These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1661 - 2016-10-31 18:59:54 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Bloodstripes wrote:
Miss Jestz wrote:
So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.


In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !

Doesn't seems too logical to me ?


Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use.

Although he has the skill name wrong, his point is none the less valid - My specialized leadership character will be using 2.5 charges per cycle..


Maybe, if there is someone at CCP who knows how - Fleet command skill could be changed to increase cycle time of burst modules - Bring it into line with pretty much every other module that uses charges in the game.
It would also make having "Fleet Command" trained worth something - Right now it is pretty much redundant..
"Fleet Command" effects boost range unless I'm missing something.

Also how are you getting 2.5 charges per cycle?

Unless I'm not understanding the mechanic the cycle time should be independent from the boost time. All the skills do is make the boosts from each cycle linger longer. While not useful for stationary mining boosts, which I believe is your perspective here, increasing the cycle time as well would adversely effect combat boosts where those receiving boosts may be moving in and out of the boosting ships boost radius frequently since the boosts would take longer to cycle and reapply.

The option to not train the skills to counter that actually hurts in the same situation as the time member of your fleet can have boosts when moving away is reduced, so not training them is also a loss.
Felix Shoen
Retired Drug Dogs
#1662 - 2016-11-02 17:09:13 UTC
I know a lot has been said on this but i just dont understand CCP and it spending time with a game change and
not spending time fixing broken things that have been broken for years.

also, the on-grid boosters hurt:
-small gangs defending/solo pvp with alts
-solo missioners
-miners

they are indifferent to huge blobbo fleets (except maybe to range of effect)

so, no real benefit to anyone and a detriment to those that do the horrible
boring things that make modules available, make ships less expensive, etc etc

cant wait to see the effect on market prices 3 months from now

bleh
Alexiel Fireborn
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#1663 - 2016-11-02 17:37:48 UTC
Felix Shoen wrote:
I know a lot has been said on this but i just dont understand CCP and it spending time with a game change and
not spending time fixing broken things that have been broken for years.

also, the on-grid boosters hurt:
-small gangs defending/solo pvp with alts
-solo missioners
-miners

they are indifferent to huge blobbo fleets (except maybe to range of effect)

so, no real benefit to anyone and a detriment to those that do the horrible
boring things that make modules available, make ships less expensive, etc etc

cant wait to see the effect on market prices 3 months from now

bleh


omg me too :)

Who so many people see any upcomming changes like some kind of penalty where they suppose to c them like oportunities.

Boosts on grid - more targets to shoot , now boost pilot will be on kill mail how so many players wanted , just maybe sometimes he will be on wrong side of it.
Rorquel go to belt ! Awesome , so many rorqs out there defenceless ... but hey, we dont know exact atributes of those mythical mining drones that will be granted to it , maybe if they work hard enough i`ll put some SP to learn to fly rorq too. Still rorq must die in his current state anyway because if im not mistaken ccp already want to replace it in some time at winter - drill platform.
Please stop whine arround - now this or this skill is uselless - Any skill u dont use is useless, dont forget that. So grow up and adapt.
Serge Bussier
Dark Flame in the Dark
#1664 - 2016-11-03 17:45:21 UTC
Tested command bursts on SISI last days...

Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!

So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"

Any reasonable thoughts?
Mad Crafter
Peek-A-Boo LTD
#1665 - 2016-11-03 23:47:29 UTC
I'm concerned about interceptors, and other lite tackle ships. These ships spend a lot of time way from you own fleet, and links have a very big effect on how well they can do their job. With the new system as is they would have to "check in" every 2 min assuming the link character is max skilled. This will be at best tedious, and at worst even good players will just ignore links. While I'm all for giving skilled players ways to shine I don't think this is quite the way to do it. Also if the FC tells me he wants me to warp somewhere to get eyes on something I don't want to have to tell him to wait 30 sec for the links to refresh.

My suggestion is it add a new roll bonus to interceptors, and perhaps to interdiction, and a few T1 ships that increases the duration of the link effect. I think 5x would be about right. This would require interceptors to "check in" at most every 5-10 min if they want to keep their link effects. The best players will learn when to refresh their links so they always have them when their needed, good players will refresh them only when the're about to run out, and bad one will likely ignore them all together.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1666 - 2016-11-04 02:42:00 UTC
Serge Bussier wrote:
Tested command bursts on SISI last days...

Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!

So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"

Any reasonable thoughts?



I said repeatedly this was what would happen.


But that's none of my business.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Dreckarg
Radio Industries
#1667 - 2016-11-05 19:43:02 UTC
I've tried reading through the 80 odd pages to find my answer with no luck so I apologize if this has already been answered.

The command processors are being changed from a module to a rig, will this happen automatically or will I need to purchase the new rigs and sell the old modules back to ccp?

If they change automatically will they destroy rigs fitted to ships or end up in the cargo hold or station hanger?

Many thanks for your answers.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#1668 - 2016-11-07 23:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
aldhura wrote:

I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.



So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing.

How many years, now, have we known that OGB was on the chopping block? 4? 5?



While i dont think there will be any reimbursement, your argument makes no sense.

Using your logic, CCP could take the 'evasive manoeuvring' skill, and change its attributes to simply increase the speed of spinning ships in station. Its the same skill, it still has a legitimate use. Why wouldnt you want keep it, right?

CCP has no hard and fast rule with SP reimbursements and has been both kind and harsh on that topic in the past.

You should probably leave this SP question for CCP to answer rather than righteous-posting with a CCP boner about something you cannot be sure to be correct on.


As for the booster changes. Yogsoloth said it best. (from the perspective of end-game solo/small gang, low sec pvp)

Yogsoloth wrote:
Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.

The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.

The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.

These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.

This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.

I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.

I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE's overall bottom line.

But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.

That's something at least...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1669 - 2016-11-08 11:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Bloodstripes wrote:
Miss Jestz wrote:
So, I've tested the command bursts in SISI and I have a question regarding the Command Burst Specialist skill.


In a situation when you leave the command burst cycling, the more skilled you are in Command Burst Specialist, the more charges you'll be using without any other benefit. So it would seem that for that situation you will want that skill untrained since it only gives negative benefits !

Doesn't seems too logical to me ?


Command Burst Specialist affects reload time, not cycle time. The clip size on burst modules is so large that you'll never need to reload unless you want to. So it won't affect how much ammo you use.

Although he has the skill name wrong, his point is none the less valid - My specialized leadership character will be using 2.5 charges per cycle..


Maybe, if there is someone at CCP who knows how - Fleet command skill could be changed to increase cycle time of burst modules - Bring it into line with pretty much every other module that uses charges in the game.
It would also make having "Fleet Command" trained worth something - Right now it is pretty much redundant..
"Fleet Command" effects boost range unless I'm missing something.

Also how are you getting 2.5 charges per cycle?

Unless I'm not understanding the mechanic the cycle time should be independent from the boost time. All the skills do is make the boosts from each cycle linger longer. While not useful for stationary mining boosts, which I believe is your perspective here, increasing the cycle time as well would adversely effect combat boosts where those receiving boosts may be moving in and out of the boosting ships boost radius frequently since the boosts would take longer to cycle and reapply.

The option to not train the skills to counter that actually hurts in the same situation as the time member of your fleet can have boosts when moving away is reduced, so not training them is also a loss.
Simple answer - Do you "really" think any decent fleet is going to rely on just one booster?
You can have as many boosters active at any one time as you choose, anyone silly enough to "wander out of boost range" deserves to die, just like he would now by wandering out of logi range (which happens to be the same as boosting range)

I have a feeling from your response, you don't spend much time in fleets or maybe your "that guy" who continually has to be told to keep at range on the anchor.

2.5 charges per cycle - not exact but close, just check skills and add the right implant.
Without the totally unnecessary charges, the skills would affect duration of the module - Devs just decided it would be "better" for some reason to add an additional cost and more micromanagement to boosting, on top of bringing it on grid (which is good, except for the rubbish mechanic of charges that comes with it)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1670 - 2016-11-08 19:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Simple answer - Do you "really" think any decent fleet is going to rely on just one booster?
No, assuming the fleet is of sufficient size to support multiple boosters without sacrificing other utility, and even then I expect diversity of boosts meaning throwing more numbers at the issue remains a poor solution to the problem.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
You can have as many boosters active at any one time as you choose, anyone silly enough to "wander out of boost range" deserves to die, just like he would now by wandering out of logi range (which happens to be the same as boosting range)

I have a feeling from your response, you don't spend much time in fleets or maybe your "that guy" who continually has to be told to keep at range on the anchor.
Totally forgot we were playing a game where combat strategy only occurs with all ships huddled together in bubbles or requires a totally separate set of boosters for every group that should operate at range.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
2.5 charges per cycle - not exact but close, just check skills and add the right implant.
Without the totally unnecessary charges, the skills would affect duration of the module - Devs just decided it would be "better" for some reason to add an additional cost and more micromanagement to boosting, on top of bringing it on grid (which is good, except for the rubbish mechanic of charges that comes with it)
The cycles don't change so it's always 1 charge per cycle. It's the effect duration that changes but that gets a renewed timer with each cycle. I get that the only use case you care about is an Orca in a belt, but for everyone who can look past that it's clear that the ammo has nothing to do with what I stated. With or without ammo, any role that may leave the radius of a booster then return will benefit from shorter cycles paired with longer effect durations.

And for most, no, boosting won't be micro managed because while you can the gains in low cost ammo savings won't really matter because they'll actually have to fly their ships instead.
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
#1671 - 2016-11-11 05:06:13 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
aldhura wrote:

I think you missing the point. Some people have an account they use just for boosting, that account is now redundant.



So what? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to make an alt that would only be useful if you didn't have to actually _fly_ the thing.

How many years, now, have we known that OGB was on the chopping block? 4? 5?



While i dont think there will be any reimbursement, your argument makes no sense.

Using your logic, CCP could take the 'evasive manoeuvring' skill, and change its attributes to simply increase the speed of spinning ships in station. Its the same skill, it still has a legitimate use. Why wouldnt you want keep it, right?

CCP has no hard and fast rule with SP reimbursements and has been both kind and harsh on that topic in the past.

You should probably leave this SP question for CCP to answer rather than righteous-posting with a CCP boner about something you cannot be sure to be correct on.


As for the booster changes. Yogsoloth said it best. (from the perspective of end-game solo/small gang, low sec pvp)

Yogsoloth wrote:
Hindsight will reveal this change as one of the final nails sealing the end of EVE.

The cancelation of all these secondary accounts used for boosting will not help EVE's bottom line.

The changes will not bring any old players back and as such will have zero positive affects on subscription numbers.

These changes will have little to no effect on large scale warfare, these engagements have more than enough people to have designated on-grid links.

This change will have a negative effect on small gang and solo (single person) pvp. Small gangs dont have enough dedicated people to designate some1 for on-grid boosts, and solo players won't be able to compete or skirmish with a small group without a way to help level the field. These fights will be dumbed down to whoever has more people will win.

I understand CCP only cares about large fights that grab headlines, but I expect solo pvp to continue it's downward spiral, as these changes force everyone into fleets to compete.

I expect a number of these solo or small gang enthusiasts to also cancel accounts. All in all, this change will net a significant loss and cancelation of subscriptions and hurt EVE's overall bottom line.

But hooray that all the carebears will have to find new reasons to cry over their losses.

That's something at least...


I think you are both very off on this one...

Solo PVP will actually see a huge boost + rejuvination as you will now actually be able to really solo PVP (not PVP 1 vs maxed linked cancer 2Bil implanted Garmurs and other cancer linked ships).

If you see a ship on D-scan and no booster ships around - you can actually engage and have a "truesolo" fight. Before this was impossible as almost all "self-proclamed PVP topdogs" had an OGB alt permalinking the entire system 24/7. Just check Vard (3-1 years ago).

OnGrid "nerf" will be huge for FW and lowsec roaming solo/small-gang PVP as you can actually see (D-scan) what is in a plex and know for sure that the target is not linked . Before this was (nearly) impossible
Mafone
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1672 - 2016-11-11 22:55:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mafone
What happened to:
Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system.
Blog four will be released right before the November release, covering all the changes to the plan we made thanks to your feedback and summarizing all the ship and module balance changes in the November release for easy reference.

Are the balance tweeks (NERFS) to combat focused Boosting ships further expanded as we were promised and if so where as well as the whole blog 4 stuff. They don't seem even to be in the patch notes for ascension which were published today

As a high skilled command ship pilot would be nice to be able to know whats happening to the ships themselves amidst this extensive and in some places needed (on grid finally) reworking of the command boost system - we have had the well overpowered details on the so much buffed Mining command ships that they are well OP for months. Yet the much more common and integral to combat command ships???? apart from the general point of nerfing the number of links they can field and a promise of a dev blog on further details nothing. I know this patch is all about how much ccp loves miners but I am sure the number of active combat command ships in game far exceeds to niche mining ones probably by orders of magnitude. So what are you doing to our command ships apart from nerfing the number of links and the on grid stuff. Will we have to wait until tuesday when we log in to see if we can pilot ships we already have and how effective they are?
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
#1673 - 2016-11-12 04:44:10 UTC
Mafone wrote:
What happened to:
Blog three will focus on the balance tweaks being made to combat-focused boosting ships to release alongside the new system.
Blog four will be released right before the November release, covering all the changes to the plan we made thanks to your feedback and summarizing all the ship and module balance changes in the November release for easy reference.

Are the balance tweeks (NERFS) to combat focused Boosting ships further expanded as we were promised and if so where as well as the whole blog 4 stuff. They don't seem even to be in the patch notes for ascension which were published today

As a high skilled command ship pilot would be nice to be able to know whats happening to the ships themselves amidst this extensive and in some places needed (on grid finally) reworking of the command boost system - we have had the well overpowered details on the so much buffed Mining command ships that they are well OP for months. Yet the much more common and integral to combat command ships???? apart from the general point of nerfing the number of links they can field and a promise of a dev blog on further details nothing. I know this patch is all about how much ccp loves miners but I am sure the number of active combat command ships in game far exceeds to niche mining ones probably by orders of magnitude. So what are you doing to our command ships apart from nerfing the number of links and the on grid stuff. Will we have to wait until tuesday when we log in to see if we can pilot ships we already have and how effective they are?



Correct - You could do nothing and wait til Tuesday to find out...

OR - you could do something (some creativity + effort) and log on SiSi and test and find out yourself. Moreover - you could already create a new Command Ship fit using the new fitting tool, and even save/import it into Tranquility, so that its ready for the day patch goes live...

Of course the latter is probably asking for too much effort and its easier to whine...
Easyfail
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1674 - 2016-11-12 13:40:22 UTC
i've read most of the posts, it took aprox 1 hour, i still dont understand... WHY?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1675 - 2016-11-13 14:34:34 UTC
Easyfail wrote:
i've read most of the posts, it took aprox 1 hour, i still dont understand... WHY?


tl;dr CCP don't want keep roles to be AFK alt territory.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Fiddly Pop
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#1676 - 2016-11-14 14:39:03 UTC
I don't know if this has been answered but if I use a command burst on someone with a criminal will i get flag as suspect?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1677 - 2016-11-14 15:06:31 UTC
Fiddly Pop wrote:
I don't know if this has been answered but if I use a command burst on someone with a criminal will i get flag as suspect?
As far as I know, the answer is no, you will not get a flag. Fozzie said the following and to my knowledge nothing has changed:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch?
A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1678 - 2016-11-14 20:23:19 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Serge Bussier wrote:
Tested command bursts on SISI last days...

Can someone explain why bursts activation considered as offensive action (and causes weapons timer)?!

So there is (for example) a fleet which is travelling to somewhere... No offensive actions taken! Why would the whole fleet wait on every gate for 1 boosting ship who is only dealing (for example again) agility bonus? Another thought: Orca, full of ore, is going to dock on near-situated citadel/station - but there's a message "Buddy, you have taken an offensive action last minute. Get off till the timer ends!"

Any reasonable thoughts?



I said repeatedly this was what would happen.


But that's none of my business.



On SiSi at least, the weapons timer does come into play. Really wish CCP would give and update since we're less than two days away.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
Juoi Milar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1679 - 2016-11-15 00:33:17 UTC
Baltrom wrote:
im probably going to catch a fair amount of flak for this but id like to be the voice of the probably unpopular opinion that theses changes are not thought through.
(also please excuse my possibly bad enlgish)

at the moment , there is nothing wrong with links , everyone in the game can use them equally . if you have the isk to plex an alt or the rl money , for links , anyone can do it and use them equally .

right , now theres people saying , oh wow , why do i need to have an alt to be on par with the bois that have link alts ? thats unfair.

well . you need alts for everything in this game , the newest launcher is even designed to make launching alts easier . you cant really mine without having an army of mining alts (if you want to be on par with the people that have mining alts), you cant use supers effectively unless you have alts sitting in them , some lowsec alliances only recruit people with capital alts , people camp gates with re sebo alts etc etc ... the entire alt argument is ******** in a game like eve .
so, you want to have links ? get someone with a links alt . not really a big deal in my opinion.

2nd , i obviously have no clue how the new links ships are gonna be flown on a combat grid . but to me it seems as if the new mechanic gives even more power to the blob. eve is a game of n+1 , if you have more people , you are stronger . now forcing links on grid means that 2 equally skilled fleets , both having their links on grid and, depending on how the ships are gonna be flown , also in dps range of each other . now one of the fleets is actually a bit bigger , which is already an advantage , but to me it seems that the bigger fleet will not only have an easier time keeping their links alive , but also killing the enemy links ship which is going to put them at an even bigger disadvantage as they already are .

i might be wrong with everything i am saying , maybe i dont see the big picture .
i also didnt read every single comment and dont know if my concerns have already been voiced by someone else.



I think what you may be missing is the sense of realism this will add to the game. The game has been lacking some large fleet battles in the last few years especially in FW and this may help to re-ignite that. Also large fleet battles are not just about numbers but about leadership, control, good scouting, good maneouvering and great execution of a well thought out plan. In the past I have often (within Spiritus Draconis) been involved in large fleet battles and won despite being outnumbered.

At last command ships may actually be used exactly how they should be, within a fleet. I think there are going to be some interesting times ahead.
Urduri
Blazing Eagles
#1680 - 2016-11-16 19:15:44 UTC
Vyctam Shadowclaw wrote:
I was wondering if Orcas were getting a stronger tank or better defensive/combat capability. As it is, seems like this change forces more to be sitting ducks for gankers.

I'm sad to see the passive nature of the buffs go - trained for nearly a year to specifically have passive buffs while mining or mission running but guess the good old days are coming to an end.




Yes, the Orca does get a tank buff. I was seeing about a 40% increase. As far as the passive buffs for mining, that was almost the sole reason I started a second account, for the mining boosts. As the mining bursts links require charges, which cost more than than the boosts are worth, I'll likely let the second account lapse. As solo mining is rather tedious and slow, i may well let the remaining account lapse as well. Many people might say "Do something else, like missioning, or exploration." Both of those wear out my arm and hands, so it gets to be very tiring after a couple hours. :P

CCP is doing a good job of eliminating long-term subscribers one account at a time. Sad