These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Spacetramp Sotken
Doomheim
#461 - 2016-08-30 08:40:58 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
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.


Oh really, and while this fleet is defending Rorqs/Orcas in 2 or 3 systems red fleets are wreaking havoc in every other system. Not every system has every ore or ice in it even in Null. Over the weekend there were constant 20+ red fleets going around, would you put out a capital ship in a belt to boost the fleet?

What do they do then?

Abandon the boosters, then chase the reds leaving the mining fleet defenceless, or constantly dock the Rorq/Orca up every 5 mins? Or do they use a Command Destroyer which is tight to fit now, fine the Processors are changing to rigs, which means no Armour rigs etc. How that's going to fit enough tank to sit in a belt I have no idea.

All in all another nerf to mining/indy and completely ignores the issue of neutral boosting, which is probably one of the most broken mechanics in the game..not surprising really considering the direction the game has been driven in the last few years.

HS will probably turn out to be the least affected by these changes.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#462 - 2016-08-30 08:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
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

...what blog are you seeing? Maybe it's a different one? I'm looking at the blog linked from the login window, and it has a tabled stat for "Command rig - if ship is allowed to fit command modules, +1 command module." I don't see any mention of percentages. And it lists neither t1 or t2, I assumed t1 because the anchor rig went that direction.

Edit: quotations matter!

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#463 - 2016-08-30 08:50:53 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
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

...what blog are you seeing? Maybe it's a different one? I'm looking at the blog linked from the login window, and it has a tabled stat for "Command rig - if ship is allowed to fit command modules, +1 command module." I don't see any mention of percentages. And it lists neither t1 or t2, I assumed t1 because the anchor rig went that direction.

Edit: quotations matter!


my bad its late i was reading the rig above it

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#464 - 2016-08-30 08:51:00 UTC
Jason Ozran wrote:
On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there was 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, but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.

However, 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 left 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 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. 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...



How is removing off grid boosting continuing along this path?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
#465 - 2016-08-30 08:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Croc Evil
I think the weakest point of whole rebalance is:
Quote:
This means that passive bonuses provided to entire fleets from skills, implants and ship hulls will be removed and replaced with this new active module system.

Because of SCALING in:
Quote:
Many other dedicated fleet support roles such as logistics, command destroyer, interdictor, and interceptor piloting all involve tactical decision making and allow the best pilots to stand above their peers.

All logistics, interdiction, intercepting gameplay SCALES pretty well. Any ship can be used as logistics, some just are better. Any ship can tackle/intercept, some are just better. In all these roles, you can scale from using not specialized tech 1 ships to very focused tech 2/ tech 3 ships and corresponding skills.

In current fleet boosting this scaling is done from low access skills giving passive passive boost to specialized modules (links), ships and skills. So at least some scaling level not forcing players to use specific ships. You plan to remove this passive scaling level. Even if you lower requirements for some command module capable ships, it will still lack scaling potential of current system.

Passive bonuses were not that decisive in vast majority of situations and removing that pesky scan resolution bonus from Svipul sitting on gate is good. But many players invest SP (time ~ money) to this low fleet boost scaling level. These invested SPs are now unusable unless those players invest even more SP (time ~ money) and on top of it change their (favorite to not so favorite) playstyle because of ship type enforcement. So saying Leadership, Armored Warfare etc. converted skills will have same impact on game is kind a bad joke.

Putting some low scaling level in place is important IMO. I think the simplest adjustment would be to give any ship ability to fit one command module. But I can see how this could increase potential boost sources amount for server to process/track to insane number so probably won't happen.
Sentenced 1989
#466 - 2016-08-30 09:07:21 UTC
Vidork Drako wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Vidork Drako wrote:

Another question :
Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?

Nope, just a weapons timer.

OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad.

In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles.

In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you.

Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer.



That was my main concern about links .. and this is why I asked the question. Booster on Grid should get a suspect timer by boosting out of corp members who are fighting in wardec as logi does. Period. Not giving a booster that timer is a non sense. Or .. explain us why you didnt see it that way CCP :)


This is grey area, while I agree that neutral alts should not be able to interfere, it is also tricky and could be abused. Image situation where people outside of corp join fleets, as a booster you would have to screen any for wardecs, otherwise they could be in wardec with their alt, shot themselves once so you get suspect flag and then blow you up easily (speaking about HS boosters).

One thing would be same as reps, you can rep / boost up till point ship goes in engagement with valid target, if the target is not valid target for you as well it would stop applying your boost for next cycles. But in that case you ****** up lowsec groups when they decide to kill neutrals, etc...

So overall, complicated position.

The Incursion Guild

Epic Arc Guide
Jason Ozran
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#467 - 2016-08-30 09:09:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Ozran
Malcanis wrote:
Jason Ozran wrote:
On the booster side, it was expected for a long time, and there was 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, but we'll see when it comes out. At least you are trying to tackle the issue.

However, 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 left 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 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. 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...



How is removing off grid boosting continuing along this path?



I was referring to the Rorqual invincibility that is also part of the devblog. You would realize that if you read my bullet points, where i explicitely mention this feature.


Also, hearing CCP using the argument that you need ressources to find off grid boosters, and at the same time seeing them allowing a ship to be invisible at dscan in medium FW in low sec is just... oh the irony. That's basically what I want to point out: no coherence whatsoever in the way this game is headed.
Jason Ozran
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#468 - 2016-08-30 09:31:26 UTC
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...



Amen.
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2016-08-30 09:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Trant
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.

1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions).

2. How will the wearing off of a shield or armor HP effect be handled, when said ship is in low shield or armor?
2a. How will the application of a new shield or armor HP effect by handled when said ship has no shield or armor?

3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout.
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
#470 - 2016-08-30 09:44:16 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:
>> Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful...
Sorry for getting offtopic right off the bat, but this only works on the principle thinking that the booster is an alt account where the player only runs one monitor in case the ship always remains stationary. There are too many possibilities for people who run software and hardware solutions which makes early notification of combat probes possible without going into the botting and scripting category. In short; the moment you see probes on d-scan, you warp away. There is no way for an attentive player to get caught by combat probes if s/he isn't already engaged otherwise and is not in a huge and clunky ship that isn't already pre-aligned. This is an inherent problem with combat probes which I hope to see addressed in the future.

I once caught an offgrid linkship using only dscan and midwarp bookmarks.


Drazz Caylen wrote:
>> ...Armor, Shield (formerly known as Siege), Information, Skirmish, and Mining.
Mind if you change "skirmish" to "navigation" at that point then and replace the ewar bonus with something else?

What would this something else be? The ewar bonus is pretty important for small fast gangs, exactly what the skirmish boosts are meant for.


Drazz Caylen wrote:
>> These modules must be loaded with ammo in order to activate, and the ammo choices determine which bonus the module will provide to nearby fleetmates.
Suggestion; change the ammo to something new, being a high-slot script. That doesn't affect reload time but certainly makes more sense than using... well... "ammo." I don't even want to think about what kind of explanation will be tried to reason using "ammo" for a "physical stat boost". Sure, maybe it's more like a battery to help out with the capacitor... at which point we are at auxiliary modules, which require much more cap if running out of charges. See?

I bet you that existing code for scripts doesn't allow for reload times and they just can't be arsed to change it.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#471 - 2016-08-30 09:50:06 UTC
Croc Evil wrote:
I think the weakest point of whole rebalance is:
Quote:
This means that passive bonuses provided to entire fleets from skills, implants and ship hulls will be removed and replaced with this new active module system.

Because of SCALING in:
Quote:
Many other dedicated fleet support roles such as logistics, command destroyer, interdictor, and interceptor piloting all involve tactical decision making and allow the best pilots to stand above their peers.

All logistics, interdiction, intercepting gameplay SCALES pretty well. Any ship can be used as logistics, some just are better. Any ship can tackle/intercept, some are just better. In all these roles, you can scale from using not specialized tech 1 ships to very focused tech 2/ tech 3 ships and corresponding skills.

In current fleet boosting this scaling is done from low access skills giving passive passive boost to specialized modules (links), ships and skills. So at least some scaling level not forcing players to use specific ships. You plan to remove this passive scaling level. Even if you lower requirements for some command module capable ships, it will still lack scaling potential of current system.

Passive bonuses were not that decisive in vast majority of situations and removing that pesky scan resolution bonus from Svipul sitting on gate is good. But many players invest SP (time ~ money) to this low fleet boost scaling level. These invested SPs are now unusable unless those players invest even more SP (time ~ money) and on top of it change their (favorite to not so favorite) playstyle because of ship type enforcement. So saying Leadership, Armored Warfare etc. converted skills will have same impact on game is kind a bad joke.

Putting some low scaling level in place is important IMO. I think the simplest adjustment would be to give any ship ability to fit one command module. But I can see how this could increase potential boost sources amount for server to process/track to insane number so probably won't happen.

Having every ship in the game being able to fit 1 module and then all of the bonused ships having additional Modules actually sounds pretty good.

I still think that the Command Destroyer needs some form of Range Bonus on it.
Ginger Naari
Doomheim
#472 - 2016-08-30 09:51:10 UTC
Major Trant wrote:
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.

1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions).

2. How will the wearing off of a shield or armor HP effect be handled, when said ship is in low shield or armor?
2a. How will the application of a new shield or armor HP effect by handled when said ship has no shield or armor?

3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout.


As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?

No idea about 2

If i'm reading it right, using one boost, then another of the exact same type will result in the first counting down, then the second would take over with what time it has left, ie while the one you are getting is running down, so is the other, they don't stack, but will still run down, if that makes sense?
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#473 - 2016-08-30 09:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari 5
Major Trant wrote:
3. If the same boost is applied before the first wears off, will the timer be extended? Assuming yes, how will it handle things if the second boost has a lower strength? ie: Will the lower strength be applied (1). Immediately; (2). At the end of the first boost timer; (3) The higher boost will remain throughout.


This was answered in one of the previous Blue Posts

Edit Link to post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6612905#post6612905
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#474 - 2016-08-30 09:56:19 UTC
After these changes there won't be any need for a fleet hierarchy, therefore is the fleet window being simplified accordingly and will the maximum number of allowed fleet mates be upped?
Irya Boone
The Scope
#475 - 2016-08-30 10:02:47 UTC
No effect In FW plexes !! please and thank you

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2016-08-30 10:07:45 UTC
Ginger Naari wrote:
Major Trant wrote:
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.

1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)...


As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?...


CCP Devblog wrote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute.

Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship.
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#477 - 2016-08-30 10:11:20 UTC
Irya Boone wrote:
No effect In FW plexes !! please and thank you

Agreed.

At the same time remove the sec hit for shooting neutrals inside a FW plex.
Ginger Naari
Doomheim
#478 - 2016-08-30 10:13:02 UTC
Major Trant wrote:
Ginger Naari wrote:
Major Trant wrote:
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.

1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)...


As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?...


CCP Devblog wrote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute.

Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship.



How do you maintain them though? They seem to only have a short duration and you have a very limited range to apply them.
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#479 - 2016-08-30 10:19:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Trant
Ginger Naari wrote:
Major Trant wrote:
Ginger Naari wrote:
Major Trant wrote:
Overall I love the proposed changes but a couple of queries.

1. Will acceleration gate activation cancel the effect? This will have a huge impact on FW plexes, Incursion sites and some missions (burner missions)...


As far as I can make out only using a warp gate, pos shield or docking will cancel it. Good point about missioning though, if the ship you are in can't access the pocket how do you get boosts?...


CCP Devblog wrote:
Activating a Command Burst will generate a weapons timer and therefore prevent the boosting ship from jumping through gates or docking for one minute.

Sounds to me like a boosting ship can sit on an acceleration gate and boost a fleet before they go in. Effectively maintaining offgrid boosting. That is fine for Incursions and missions runners, but for fighting in FW plexes that is a PITA for the defending fleet, they won't be able to get a T3 or Command ship inside a medium or small plex, so won't have boosts. The attackers can sit outside with a command ship, boost up and enter without risk to the command ship.



How do you maintain them though? They seem to only have a short duration and you have a very limited range to apply them.

The first minute of the fight is the most important and often determines it's outcome. As for range, the fleet stacks up on the acceleration gate, perfect place to apply the boosts.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#480 - 2016-08-30 10:36:18 UTC
The initial boost on the warp in is indeed an advantage. But on the other hand, plex advantage is also a big deal.

Regarding the boosting effects I feel that the ranges are too small for mobile gangs. Having some falloff range on top of that would be really nice, possibly even as an ammo choice so it'd work akin to to the idea behind armor/shield logi.
Also: make links (but not command processors) fittable on all ships so that the system scales for all levels of fleet size, ship size and player experience while having room for the optimized ships.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.