These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 New Citizens Q&A

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Command Boost Modules
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#1 - 2016-11-15 05:30:48 UTC
Hello,

I was wondering why the new command modules use a nannie consumable charge. As this can create a disincentive to use the modules in some situations. As there is now an overhead cost for using these modules.

Most other Electronic systems, such as remote targeting, tracking, and weapon disruption modules vary their performance by installing scripts. So the exact same functionality could have been achieved using scripts as a consumable. Was this option considered?
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#2 - 2016-11-15 05:39:57 UTC
Because this module sprinkles magic nanites full of rainbows and lollipops all over your mining crews and makes them happy so they work more cheerfully.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#3 - 2016-11-15 06:29:10 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Hello,

I was wondering why the new command modules use a nannie consumable charge. As this can create a disincentive to use the modules in some situations. As there is now an overhead cost for using these modules.

Most other Electronic systems, such as remote targeting, tracking, and weapon disruption modules vary their performance by installing scripts. So the exact same functionality could have been achieved using scripts as a consumable. Was this option considered?


A long time ago the Devs decided that they wanted to make the game all about tradeoffs. Thus began a long line of super nerfs and scripts and consumables were added to modules that previously did not require them. So the fact that tehre are disincentives to use a module in some situations would be a good thing from the developers standpoint, and is completely in line with the direction the game has been going for 7 years.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#4 - 2016-11-15 07:20:43 UTC
... And yet, the module itself is a tradeoff. It's a tradeoff on a tradeoff. Complexifying complexifications on top of complexity. Perhaps, the develops should consider another concept... Keep it simple stupid. (KISS).

There is one very good change here, and that being that the system allows modules to do more things. As I no longer need to consider which armour module to fit while docked up in station. Instead, I now just fit the one module, and vary it's performance as the situation dictates. This is a very good change.

In exactly the same way that I can carry all of the scripts for an ECM, targeting, or sensor damp module on my EWAR ship. Scripts don't actually involve the tradeoff you are talking about. They can be fitted, unfitted, and swapped out at will. If I want to maximise attribute 1, I run script 1. If I want to maximise script 2, or run script 2. If I want a balance then I uninstall scripts. Just like changing out ammo on a turret or launcher.

So the tradeoff with command is that it now has a consumable charge which costs resources and runs out. With combat links the primary concern will be carrying enough of the consumable to last the fight, and not running modules for longer than required. Something which is not user friendly when you consider that the effect duration is in some cases longer than the module cycle time.

For mining fleets the consideration is even more important. The nature of mining work is that lasers and links will be operating all of the time. So you're spending ISK to earn ISK. This involves a whole new layer of economic calculation to determine whether there is benefit. It also involves a whole set of micromanagement - and micromanagement of minutia doesn't make the game more interesting. It makes it boring.

So if we are going to all this extra effort, there needs to be a pretty good benefit to offset this.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#5 - 2016-11-15 09:23:03 UTC
The gameplay will have been designed around combat boosts - mining boosts come along for the ride. Last Fanfest they were talking about scripts which evolved into consumable charges over the summer.

The ability to load different "ammo" depending on the circumstances is powerful - especially now that these ships will be on-grid and need to devote some fitting room to defence. It also makes low cost boosting ships like T1 battlecruisers more attractive, distributing boosts throughout a fleet instead of concentrating them in one high value target.

Using charges instead of scripts does help balance the economy. Production significantly outpaces consumption in Eve and things don't wear out or go obsolete - we need more consumables and more explosions.
Keno Skir
#6 - 2016-11-15 12:03:27 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
So the tradeoff with command is that it now has a consumable charge which costs resources and runs out. With combat links the primary concern will be carrying enough of the consumable to last the fight, and not running modules for longer than required. Something which is not user friendly when you consider that the effect duration is in some cases longer than the module cycle time.

For mining fleets the consideration is even more important. The nature of mining work is that lasers and links will be operating all of the time. So you're spending ISK to earn ISK. This involves a whole new layer of economic calculation to determine whether there is benefit. It also involves a whole set of micromanagement - and micromanagement of minutia doesn't make the game more interesting. It makes it boring.


1. Spending resources on charges which will enable you to fight better is just as user friendly as say, using turrets, missiles or an ASB for instance. The new system sounds fine, since it will work to discourage solo links (bonus not worth cost to boost only one player, but worth it to boost gang of ten).

2. Spending ISK to earn ISK is how most other things work in EvE so i'm not sure why you think that's a problem.

3. There is no more micro-management here than in any other area. Also micro-management is what EvE is all about did you not get the memo? Most of us love itRoll

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Dark Lord Trump
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2016-11-15 14:45:44 UTC
Mining Laser Optimization charges are 500ISK/min. A single venture makes using the boosts profitable. If you can't afford the link charges you certainly can't afford a battlecruiser. I think you can fit around 5 hours of boosts in a single module, so there's no danger of running out. (B-R lasted 2.1 hours of game time IIRC)

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-11-15 15:03:09 UTC
To be honest I was thinking of using the ammo charges as an excuse to ask for money for fleet boosts citing the costs.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#9 - 2016-11-15 16:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
A: Consumption makes the universe go 'round. Pretty literally, in Eve's case.

B: There's really no situation where the infinitesimal cost of charges disincentivizes anything.

C: Please don't pollute newbie Q&A with stealth-whine posts.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Nakovi Kitsune
No Pressure.
#10 - 2016-11-15 17:27:34 UTC
It seems to me they added the charges purely as a mechanic to force a delay between switching the module's effects. This comes across to me as EXTREMELY lazy devlopment/coding, as we've already seen how a system like this could and should work with the T3 destroyer modes.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-11-15 17:36:09 UTC
Nakovi Kitsune wrote:
It seems to me they added the charges purely as a mechanic to force a delay between switching the module's effects. This comes across to me as EXTREMELY lazy devlopment/coding, as we've already seen how a system like this could and should work with the T3 destroyer modes.


That's a particularly inane theory, as that could have been done just as easily with scripts and a loading delay.

No, the obvious (and CLEARLY stated) reason was because consumption is inherently good for the Eve economy.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#12 - 2016-11-16 06:26:55 UTC
Well,

I hadn't realised that the charges were so cheap. Though, I still don't think it is going to stimulate the economy that much. As most miners have Industry V, as it is the pre-requisite for other things mining related. I think a lot of miners would probably just get the blueprint and make their own supply - and cut the market out of their supply chain.

With scripts there is still a market demand. Only, instead of it being an operating cost, it would be a capital cost. With higher initial prices on scripts, and even higher prices blueprints.

Anyway, we shall see how this plays out.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2016-11-16 11:53:49 UTC
For years Rorqual boosts have required you to consume ice products. So requiring a consumable for boosts is nothing new to this game. Like other's have said it adds layers of trade-offs and complexity to the game.

As far as your K.I.S.S. comment goes this is a deep and complex game by intent and design. If you want a simple dumbed down MMO that you can pick up in an afternoon then there are plenty of those out there to choose from.

The complexity and challenge of learning and adapting in this game are what make it fun IMHO. If you wanted to devs to keep this game simple they could just put a challenge button on your screen and when you opponent accepts then random number generators would determine a winner and a looser and the winner would get a "W" on his screen and the looser would get and "L" on his screen. Would that be simple enough for you? Of course that was a hyperbole but I think it makes the point well.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli