These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MidnightWyvern
Fukamichi Corporation
SAYR Galactic
#181 - 2016-08-29 18:18:22 UTC
Sulvorati Kunoki wrote:
Currently I can passively boost a fleet from which ever ship I wish to fly. Under the new system it seems I'll have to fly a ship that can take fleet boost modules. For small fleet combat that seems like a big negative change. I don't have any issues with having to be on grid or to have active boosters modules or being made visible as a fleet booster in some way, just would like to be able to do it from whatever ship I choose to fly.

I'm also disappointed that the time I invested in training Leadership skills is being totally nullified without any recompense.

Just use a Command Destroyer. They're very useful already even without the current Warfare Links. Command Bursts are just going to make them even more useful.

Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!

Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
ZzyyzzxX
Another Nameless Corp....
#182 - 2016-08-29 18:21:34 UTC
Question about PVE interaction with rats and the on grid boosters, specifically relating to incursion running:

Will Sansha consider boosting ships to be high value targets (like ships being auto-primaried when ewar modules are activated in a site)?
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#183 - 2016-08-29 18:23:09 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Rowells wrote:
IM SO HARD RIGHT NOW BUT ALSO PICKY ON THE DETAILS A BIT. FC I NEED A TOWEL: STAT.

Quote:
T1 Industrial Core (while active)

+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+50% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range

T2 Industrial Core (while active)

+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range


AAAASSAGGHGGHGGHGGGGG DAMNIT WHY CCP WHY

I was also hoping to do away with the requirement to siege to get the bonus. Theoretically though with the numbers given it is still worth using a Rorqual for boosting even without siege active which would make both playstyles viable. So risk / reward. I think this is a nice balance.

I honestly don't feel the same way. There's a definite progression of bonuses and skill/isk cost as ships get larger or more specialized, and the progression seems to be better after the changes as well. However, once you throw in the 5-minute anchoring in place aspect, suddenly the potential risk goes much higher.

I also dislike the fact that it is the only ship that has to make this kind of commitment for its bonuses. It's pretty much always been the point of contention whenever the rorqual is brought up, and to me, seems to be the excuse for introducing the new PANIC button, rather than the other way around (bonuses justifying a penalty instead of penalty justifying a bonus).

I guess it all will depend on how long the siege cycle is going to be. I am expecting it to be reduced to 1 minute much like the bastion module. I cant see it staying at five minutes personally.

The thing I like though is before if you weren't using siege then it was better to use an Orca rather than a Rorqual. This was a stupid situation which has now thankfully been rectified, and it is always going to be better to use the Rorqual even if it is not sieged.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#184 - 2016-08-29 18:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Good job Fozzie & Co. I love the short duration of boost coverage. I love that it is ammo (I imagine this will be similar to bubble probes) rather than scripts or discrete modules. I love that it doesn't endure across gates. I love that it can't be received while tethered or in a force field. I love that you are going can see the boost effects on ships that you are fighting (I hope this is visible enough to see easily). I love that Command Processors are becoming rigs. I especially love that it gives the boosting ship a weapons timer.

I really love that you have pencilled in a wrap-up dev blog. The Citadel changes are very unclear because the early dev blogs are thoroughly out of date.

The only thing I don't really like is that this approach will strongly encourage anchoring in fleets so that everyone catches the boost. I don't think this is the right design goal. Increase the range. Or could it be limited to a certain number of recipients for each boost to either encourage a larger number of boosters for large fleets or a separation into wings? I don't know if that would be any better.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
DJB16
DJB Alpha
#185 - 2016-08-29 18:23:41 UTC
ok whats the range going to be on a BC Command ship with lvl 5 skills?
incursion runners move alot and have different anchor points sometimes 50km apart
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#186 - 2016-08-29 18:23:58 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.


wings are 50 people not just 10
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#187 - 2016-08-29 18:24:08 UTC
Sounds like FW needs on-grid boosting frigs and high sec war stuff needs a suspect timer.

Not today spaghetti.
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#188 - 2016-08-29 18:25:29 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Does the range of the module apply from the ships center mass or its model edge?


luxury problems of titan pilots ;)
Hamasaki Cross
Perkone
Caldari State
#189 - 2016-08-29 18:27:09 UTC
not sure since I didn't wanna read the 200 posts of comments on the million ways that this sucks (unless you're a CCPlease member who doesn't actually play, do industry, or understand the fact that mining is already on a decline and this will do nothing but hammer the final nail in the coffin, but instead, comes up with social experiments in order to ruin actual customer gameplay)


but mainly, for those of us who have trained literally a year of crap leadership skills that are now worthless, do we get a refund?

Also is there a refund for the Rorqual, which is literally an obsolete ship now? And mining skills and ships, which are no longer viable?


note: before the pvp e-peen nerds rage that there should be risk for the benefit, please note in advance, that you are correct. However, the game was designed one way, so people skill trained and invested in that way, so there should be some compensation for screwing that up in the interest of better game balance.



Final note: I find it comical that cloaking has no counter after 13 years.
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#190 - 2016-08-29 18:32:51 UTC
Hamasaki Cross wrote:
not sure since I didn't wanna read the 200 posts of comments on the million ways that this sucks (unless you're a CCPlease member who doesn't actually play, do industry, or understand the fact that mining is already on a decline and this will do nothing but hammer the final nail in the coffin, but instead, comes up with social experiments in order to ruin actual customer gameplay)


but mainly, for those of us who have trained literally a year of crap leadership skills that are now worthless, do we get a refund?

Also is there a refund for the Rorqual, which is literally an obsolete ship now? And mining skills and ships, which are no longer viable?


note: before the pvp e-peen nerds rage that there should be risk for the benefit, please note in advance, that you are correct. However, the game was designed one way, so people skill trained and invested in that way, so there should be some compensation for screwing that up in the interest of better game balance.



Final note: I find it comical that cloaking has no counter after 13 years.


1. no refund.
2. rorqual will get a huge buff to be on grid.
Residium Fall
Doomheim
#191 - 2016-08-29 18:34:01 UTC
Thankyou for doing this.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#192 - 2016-08-29 18:34:18 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Rowells wrote:
IM SO HARD RIGHT NOW BUT ALSO PICKY ON THE DETAILS A BIT. FC I NEED A TOWEL: STAT.

Quote:
T1 Industrial Core (while active)

+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+50% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range

T2 Industrial Core (while active)

+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range


AAAASSAGGHGGHGGHGGGGG DAMNIT WHY CCP WHY

I was also hoping to do away with the requirement to siege to get the bonus. Theoretically though with the numbers given it is still worth using a Rorqual for boosting even without siege active which would make both playstyles viable. So risk / reward. I think this is a nice balance.

I honestly don't feel the same way. There's a definite progression of bonuses and skill/isk cost as ships get larger or more specialized, and the progression seems to be better after the changes as well. However, once you throw in the 5-minute anchoring in place aspect, suddenly the potential risk goes much higher.

I also dislike the fact that it is the only ship that has to make this kind of commitment for its bonuses. It's pretty much always been the point of contention whenever the rorqual is brought up, and to me, seems to be the excuse for introducing the new PANIC button, rather than the other way around (bonuses justifying a penalty instead of penalty justifying a bonus).

I guess it all will depend on how long the siege cycle is going to be. I am expecting it to be reduced to 1 minute much like the bastion module. I cant see it staying at five minutes personally.

The thing I like though is before if you weren't using siege then it was better to use an Orca rather than a Rorqual. This was a stupid situation which has now thankfully been rectified, and it is always going to be better to use the Rorqual even if it is not sieged.

I can definitely agree on that.
Sulvorati Kunoki
Sunstrike Enterprises
#193 - 2016-08-29 18:35:12 UTC
MidnightWyvern wrote:
Sulvorati Kunoki wrote:
Currently I can passively boost a fleet from which ever ship I wish to fly. Under the new system it seems I'll have to fly a ship that can take fleet boost modules. For small fleet combat that seems like a big negative change. I don't have any issues with having to be on grid or to have active boosters modules or being made visible as a fleet booster in some way, just would like to be able to do it from whatever ship I choose to fly.

I'm also disappointed that the time I invested in training Leadership skills is being totally nullified without any recompense.

Just use a Command Destroyer. They're very useful already even without the current Warfare Links. Command Bursts are just going to make them even more useful.



I don't doubt that they are useful. However the point was that I can currently passive boost in ANY ship and if I choose to I can get in a Command ship and actively boost some more. I don't like the reduction in choice that limits my particular game play. Having said that I'm sure I can adapt.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#194 - 2016-08-29 18:35:42 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.


wings are 50 people not just 10

That depends on your fleet size, not on the existence of squads. Under this new boosting system, there's no difference between 5 squads or 5 wings.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#195 - 2016-08-29 18:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.

The only thing that gives me pause is the stacking penalty.

Example: Seems odd that it may benefit a mining ship to NOT fit a MLU.

Maybe it'll finally get some career miners to fit a tank instead of going for pure yield, then whining about how they have it so hard compared to others when every other activity in the game has to decide on their own personal balance between tank and gank.

You may be missing the point.

It also affects armor and shield modules & rigs, like resistances for example.
crazydaisy
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#196 - 2016-08-29 18:36:23 UTC
Well, I'm not wild about these changes. I'm a miner and I think we do get thrown enough crap at as is. I know afk mining is not active game play but we have CODE that takes care of that. BUT: I don't see how having an On-Grid-Booster for mining(!) will make the gameplay better, I really don't.
I understand that during a fight and you don't see that your opponent is having off-grid-boosts might be considered bad game play and could be considered unfair by some. But tell me, how in the world is it bad game play or even better game play for 2 miners in the same belt, one with OGB and the other with none booster, how will an On-Grid-Booster add to better game play. Really, I'm all ears. I want to hear it(tbh: I think you were just too lazy to code it differently).
I don't want your Noctis ripoff ship(what is this? you could not even invent a new boat for us? omg) and I don't want my boosters be in belt all the time. Nothing will be gained by it.
I will certainly stick around to see how this will develop but I do think this will be as bad as it looks right now.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#197 - 2016-08-29 18:38:32 UTC
Is the fleet hierarchy, as well as the ability to warp one's wing or squad as a leader, going to stay intact after this change? It still has value, even if it isn't being used for distributing fleet boosts.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#198 - 2016-08-29 18:38:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.


wings are 50 people not just 10

That depends on your fleet size, not on the existence of squads. Under this new boosting system, there's no difference between 5 squads or 5 wings.

Aside from asking for a complete revamp of the fleet UI I would simply prefer an unlimited* amount of wings/squads and allow the fleet leadership to determine each ones size and composition.
MidnightWyvern
Fukamichi Corporation
SAYR Galactic
#199 - 2016-08-29 18:40:01 UTC
Sulvorati Kunoki wrote:
MidnightWyvern wrote:
Sulvorati Kunoki wrote:
Currently I can passively boost a fleet from which ever ship I wish to fly. Under the new system it seems I'll have to fly a ship that can take fleet boost modules. For small fleet combat that seems like a big negative change. I don't have any issues with having to be on grid or to have active boosters modules or being made visible as a fleet booster in some way, just would like to be able to do it from whatever ship I choose to fly.

I'm also disappointed that the time I invested in training Leadership skills is being totally nullified without any recompense.

Just use a Command Destroyer. They're very useful already even without the current Warfare Links. Command Bursts are just going to make them even more useful.



I don't doubt that they are useful. However the point was that I can currently passive boost in ANY ship and if I choose to I can get in a Command ship and actively boost some more. I don't like the reduction in choice that limits my particular game play. Having said that I'm sure I can adapt.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Yeah, removing options probably looks bad right now, but I'm sure this will be of benefit in the long run. If you think about it, it'll actually allow you to engage in the small-gang PvP you love with less risk of off-grid links ruining your day in exchange for losing those passive skill bonuses.

Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!

Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
Arrendis
TK Corp
#200 - 2016-08-29 18:40:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say:

Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.


Does that mean...

Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances
Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances

... are made useless by fitting hardeners?

Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints
Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints

... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders?

Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution
Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors

... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo?


ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible?