These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#441 - 2016-08-30 07:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Ashterothi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.



give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all


Incursion communities

Industry corps

Signal Cartel

Drifter Hive "tours"


not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp

edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2016-08-30 07:35:31 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Ashterothi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.



give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all


Incursion communities

Industry corps

Signal Cartel

Drifter Hive "tours"


not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp

edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp

Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming
Lugh Crow-Slave
#443 - 2016-08-30 07:37:03 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Ashterothi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

If only I could hope that there was some reason in CCP towards people engaged in non-pvp activity in the game.



give me an example of some one doing something in eve that is not PvP any example at all


Incursion communities

Industry corps

Signal Cartel

Drifter Hive "tours"


not sure what signal cartel is but all the rest of those are pvp

edit: looked it up yes signal cartel still does pvp

Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming


even that is pvp

you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production
Lugh Crow-Slave
#444 - 2016-08-30 07:39:38 UTC
But anyway why are command ships getting nerfed so hard with the 25% rig? and boosts in general getting a nerf
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#445 - 2016-08-30 07:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Drago Misharie
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

Try this one on for size, Research Agent Farming


even that is pvp

you are competing with others that are doing it in order to sell or your are doing it to compete in bp production[/quote]
you are really stretching things.

PVP as everyone defines it involves destruction of something, yes in every game there is pvp whenever there is more than a single player.

Ok, here is another one for you to fit your definition.....Project Discovery
Lugh Crow-Slave
#446 - 2016-08-30 07:47:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction

the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that


also games can have multiple players with no PvP
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#447 - 2016-08-30 07:49:55 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
PVP as everyone defines it involves destruction of something, yes in every game there is pvp whenever there is more than a single player.

No, that would be combat, which is not the same thing. PvP means player vs player and this takes on many forms of which just one of them is spaceship combat.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#448 - 2016-08-30 07:51:05 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction

the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that

Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP.

You are a very small minority with this definition.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#449 - 2016-08-30 07:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Drago Misharie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction

the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that

Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP.

You are a very small minority with this definition.



what? even CCP defines eve as a PvP game yet it is not all pew pew you are the one mistaken here

any time two ppl attempt to achieve conflicting goals there is pvp


EDIT

but fine pvp can be the act of doves screwing sharks it has little to do with what the dev blog was on



why are the command ships getting nurfed?

are they going to get an HP adjustment when these come out at least?
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2016-08-30 07:58:43 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
O.o pvp is player vs player <- no where in that does it say anything about destruction

the most obvious form is violent however only people with a very shallow understanding limit it to that

Ok, not to be insulting, but that's not what 99.9% of the members of eve define this as PVP.

You are a very small minority with this definition.



what? even CCP defines eve as a PvP game yet it is not all pew pew you are the one mistaken here

any time two ppl attempt to achieve conflicting goals there is pvp

Ok, you convinced me.

Will warp my Rorq to a belt and die happy/sarc

Hopefully everyone else is equally impressed by your argument and logic
BuntCakez
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#451 - 2016-08-30 08:07:47 UTC
Sir Constantin wrote:
For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".


I support this notion. Or make it so they get a specific weapons timer that does not allow you to jump through accel gates
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#452 - 2016-08-30 08:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
Drago Misharie wrote:
Will warp my Rorq to a belt and die happy/sarc

Hopefully everyone else is equally impressed by your argument and logic

As mentioned before, there are people who will organize a defense and are willing to take the risk. This are the players who should get the better boost. For too long you just got perfect mining boost for no risk at all, same problem the combat boosts had. CCP is fixing this now.

You will still get mining boosts, there is even a new ship in the works and it is probably the kind of thing a smaller fleet without backup will have to go for. But don't expect the best rewards with zero effort.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#453 - 2016-08-30 08:13:27 UTC
BuntCakez wrote:
Sir Constantin wrote:
For Faction Warfare would be nice if the acceleration gate would cancel the boost. If not, people would get the boost, warp to a complex and fight while being "off-grid boosted".


I support this notion. Or make it so they get a specific weapons timer that does not allow you to jump through accel gates



i don't see to much of an issue with this as you can be sitting in the plex see some one coming boost yourself and warp off your boosting alt. only place this would not work is novice
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#454 - 2016-08-30 08:21:25 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
#1. You are assuming that someone has the max range of 87.75km on their boosting ship (per CCP Fozzie Tweets, and this is likely a Titan with the best implants isk can buy, He said MAX!)

You know what else he said?

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:

  • Have you considered making implants for range? I noted the lack thereof and wondered why
Not currently planned but those would be an option in the future.


I think someone in the thread ran the numbers and came up with roughly 61km for a max skilled command ship, and other ranges for other ships. Caps get better range, destroyers get less range.

Yes, not everything can benefit kiting. Also worth noting that titan boosts will be less effective than command ship boosts. You trade range for potency. Awesome, right? So skill up for range.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#455 - 2016-08-30 08:22:17 UTC
Anyone thinking of cashing out leadership skills they don't want into skill extractors should do so quickly before the market crashes. Prices are down already.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marox Calendale
Voices of War - Research and Production
Evictus.
#456 - 2016-08-30 08:26:04 UTC
Does the boosting ship still have to be part of a fleet to get its own boosts or will it be possible to fight 1 vs 1 in a selfboosted ship?
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#457 - 2016-08-30 08:28:15 UTC
These changes look fantastic.

As someone who has read innumerable threads about people either complaining about or politely asking for changes to this system for years, I feel this is an amazing moment for EvE. The new system looks like it'll do an incredible job of balancing the needs of fleets and the complaints of the old system. Right now, it looks like these systems have been very well thought-out and carefully balanced. Dedicated command ships seem to have the most command burst potential and great range. The other options are smaller ship size for smaller number and smaller range of buffs but you get better mobility on-grid and between fights, while larger ships get equal number of buffs but less strength compared to dedicated command ships but get more range. This is exactly, exactly how I would have wanted such a system. It's elegant, balanced, and provides great options with tradeoffs.

The reduced time sink to get into tech II bursts finally puts them on par with tech II weapons, a change that was sorely needed. The switch to command rigs is a great balancing move.

I like the command burst ammo idea. The removal of hierarchy is great and opens up a lot of fleet options for redundancy and perhaps taking the heat off of individual booster pilots.

All of these complex changes of such an important system are brilliant. Are you guys opening up a McDonald's bychance? Because I'm lovin' it.


But, there seem to be some flaws, oversights, and a bit of info that was already provided that I still have to air my disagreement with.

1: Your blog states there's a command rig. Fantastic. But...it does not currently list stats. I'm sure they're still being worked on, and that's not really the point I wanted to get to. But, your blog only states that there's going to be "a" command rig. So, there's only a tech-1 variant like the anchor rig? I feel this is a missed opportunity.
-I would like to see two rigs, tech I gives you one more command processor, tech II gives you two...with a 150/200 calibration respectively. So if someone dedicates all of their rigging to extra processors, they can get up to six on their vessel. Or, they can fit one rig for two extra processors, and one more rig available. Something like that. There is a great opportunity for risk, balance, and reward here that I hope you embrace.
-Or, maybe 150/300 respectively. So, you can only ever have a max of four processors on your ship, but if you do go with the tech-II rig, you don't have a lot of calibration points left over for your remaining rig slot.

2: A few people mentioned HP boost mechanics and I think it's be great if we could get clarity on that, and possibly a revision if necessary. I've seen forum threads where people claimed that their ships blew up because a booster turned off his armor boosts, and their health went into the negative. Since you're rebalancing command buffs, let's discuss this.
-First, is this accurate?
-If so, why? It doesn't make sense to me that a buff would actively hurt you when removed, rather than just reducing the upper limit of your potential HP. If this is the case, and the code is already being revisited, there should be a goal of changing this system over so such things do not happen anymore. Removing max HP should not reduce your current HP, just bring you down to the new maximum that is unboosted. Since this blog and thread have already addressed redundant boosts and there's contingencies in place for weaker and stronger boosts taking effect and dropping off, it would seem to me that fixing this is an urgent issue indeed.

3: You already and clearly stated that neutral boosting will not warrant a suspect timer. As someone who is two days away from command ships V and is theoretically benefited by this, I still feel it is a loophole that should not exist. Can we have, in this forum thread or even a different thread if need be, a discussion about this specific point? Any other assistance you give as a neutral entity still places you at risk. You can't accidentally boost someone you ought not to, since they had to fleet up with you. If you're accepting non-corp members into your fleet to boost them, you should accept the risk that comes with boosting others (and another good reason to encourage people to be in corps, not NPC). Again, other remote boosters like logi already face this, why should command buffs be exempt from this?
-I feel it is folly to suggest that boosts should be brought on-grid to be interacted with, but also say that they can be protected by Concord in ways other boosters are not. These are tanky ships, ganking them is not a feasible solution. This is still a completely lopsided advantage for command pilots and they/we should not have this special snowflake treatment.

4: I feel a bit of unease when your blog mentions tweaking the combat command ships. If the command ships get tweaked, I'm hoping they're slated for something close to the heavy interdiction cruiser treatment. Appropriate racial bonuses, role bonus to tank. Right now you are planning on having these command ships really get into the thick of battle, and ability to tank some waves of damage is going to be a very high priority. If all command ships can't tank roughly (ROUGHLY) similar numbers, the weak ones are going to be immediately obsolete. These are going to be fleet ships, in heavy battle, may or may not be primary, and need similar staying power. If one ship has half the tank of the other, which one do you think is really going to be brought into battle?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#458 - 2016-08-30 08:33:01 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:


1: Your blog states there's a command rig. Fantastic. But...it does not currently list stats. I'm sure they're still being worked on, and that's not really the point I wanted to get to. But, your blog only states that there's going to be "a" command rig. So, there's only a tech-1 variant like the anchor rig? I feel this is a missed opportunity.
-I would like to see two rigs, tech I gives you one more command processor, tech II gives you two...with a 150/200 calibration respectively. So if someone dedicates all of their rigging to extra processors, they can get up to six on their vessel. Or, they can fit one rig for two extra processors, and one more rig available. Something like that. There is a great opportunity for risk, balance, and reward here that I hope you embrace.
-Or, maybe 150/300 respectively. So, you can only ever have a max of four processors on your ship, but if you do go with the tech-II rig, you don't have a lot of calibration points left over for your remaining rig slot.




it says in the blog 25% and there is no t1(listed at least) only t2

this would be a good idea if with this rig you could get at least some what better than current but you will get less now than b4 and have to give up a rig

this rigs boost is way to high(even if only one can be fit per ship) and will make it hard to justify using a command ship over a t3
Jason Ozran
0mega.
#459 - 2016-08-30 08:33:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Ozran
On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there were some changes to be made and done. Gonna be a mess since half of the universe has alts for boosting/logi, and that might actually make even more people unsub (especially since you want to make the skill time lower, basically saying screw you to all the people that spent months doing it on alts), but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.

Now, regarding the end of the post with the Rorqual, it seems CCP continues on another dangerous path: you guys have been making this game easier and easier. Let me explain, cause it looks likes a great idea in the first place, but as many realized recently, it didn't help attracting new players at all and instead made a lot of old players leave the game or go AFK. Why? Because what made Eve the game it was is slowly going away :

- we used to be able to lose SP (yes, it sucks, but at least you were learning from that mistakes and no other games had this...making it a bit special somehow)

- you made the unlimited skill queue, making people connect once every 6 months instead of every other week (might sucks too, but that was making the universe active, not dead like it is now)

- you allow skill trading. Eve was always about making choices, and if you make the wrong ones, well you just have to deal with it. But no, they had to make the skill injectors and ruin that too... (I know some people that spent hundreds of dollars just to get PLEx and injectors, so I guess we all know why CCP did this feature...)

- you made so that some ship are invisible to D-Scan, which is just against every possible rule when it comes to balancing PVP, especially solo (making FW even more useless and annoying in low sec)

- you want to make some ships invincible (Rorqual). I mean, seriously? Everytime you undock, you might lose your ship. And that's the main reason why people undock and take the risk, because it is exciting! If you want to be safe, go play Pokemon, not Eve Online

And the list goes on and on. What's next? Giving the money back everytime someone cries because he lost a ship so that he/she doesn't leave the game? Offer free PLEX to people? Be a bit serious...

Stop making the game so boring and safe all the time, we need the risks back, the lost of skills or money and all this that used to make Eve a game so special. You have much better stuff to focus on, starting with the Stargates you have been talking about for 3 years now...
Avon Salinder
#460 - 2016-08-30 08:34:25 UTC
The combat command links look excellent, they should really help integrate OGB alts back into mainstream society.

The issue of mining boost ships needing to be on-grid wouldn't be quite so controversial if mining sites were switched from anomalies back to signatures. Perhaps we should wait and see what the "drilling array" expansion has to offer in the near future before reprocessing all those rorqs.