These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2016-08-30 21:47:00 UTC
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
Then you could have the booster sit further off the grid, while still giving bonuses where needed.


Do you not understand that this is exactly what they don't want? They don't want the boosters sitting off in a corner somewhere only occasionally doing something interesting. They want them in the middle of the fight, in the thick of it, putting foot to ass for their fleet mates.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#682 - 2016-08-30 21:47:18 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:

Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble.


And yet with a long cycle time, you'd have to wait to rebuff your fleet mates, who would then be out of buffs because they only last about 60 seconds. Trust me when I say that long cycle times will not make the problem you perceive any better.


All of the buff duration skills make it look like they're going to last significantly longer than module cycle times. That, at least, is at least interesting and good from a gameplay perspective. Fozzie, can you confirm? Also, a specific "Fleet command at 4" number for how long the buffs last would be pretty good. Not saying its because I have FC at 4, but... :P

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Jathen Codexus
The Pendragyn Chapter
#683 - 2016-08-30 21:48:24 UTC
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?


They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#684 - 2016-08-30 21:50:43 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

One Stealth Bomber can take out a fleet of macks or retrievers easily with a single bomb. Just aim for to boosting ship with all the sweet targets clustered around it.

Only if you fit for nothing but yield. IIRC our macks had much more than 10k EHP. Not to mention that in hostile space they kind of are not the most optimal ship. There is a mining ship that can take real beatings. But again, you expect all the cakes all at once, max yields, max tanks, max everything, 100% safe. While everyone else has to compromise fits.

If we aren't fitted for yield, why in the heck would we have a boosting ship in a belt?

Illogical


You fit for tank, and then have boosts to up your yield to make up for the deficit. That way, you have the best of both worlds (tank and yield). You don't have the highest yield possible, but you have a really nice margin and are still able to tank multiple bombs. That is how you maximize your risk/reward when there are cloaky reds in system. If you have a great alliance with secure space, you can fit less tank and even more yield... you reap the rewards of your hard work (or rather, the hard work of your defense fleets).

protip: Don't try to call out the logic of others when yours is so obviously flawed.

Your logic doesn't and isn't convincing, you don't need to make up a deficit if you don't have one.

Self made problem you are trying to solve.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#685 - 2016-08-30 21:53:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Jathen Codexus wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?


They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy.

Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed.

I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#686 - 2016-08-30 22:00:07 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed.

I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.

The capacitor and cycle time were rolled into the same boost.

For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#687 - 2016-08-30 22:02:26 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

-Liang

I think re-factoring combat boosting has little to do with the Rorqual, and that changes to combat boosting shouldn't suffer because of the Rorqual.

However, combat boosting is a very different application than mining boosting, and shouldn't be painted the same.

As a Rorqual owner, I honestly feel it could be removed, or converted into a specialized ice / ore hauler. The Rorqual's current role might better be served by a system-wide bonus on a Drilling Platform.
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#688 - 2016-08-30 22:04:00 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Krystyn wrote:
I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits.
If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed.
Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back.

You're more brave than most.

Just not going to happen for me with:
* 5 minute siege timer
* Booster module with reactivation delay (no auto-repeat).
* "super weapon" that only postpones destruction


I meant across all of EVE being only a very small number of rorquals in belts. There are always a few idiots.
Maybe a few super groups will have massive enough forces to guard one.
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#689 - 2016-08-30 22:12:46 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:

Since everyone knows that once CCP gets set on a great new idea, it's pretty much set to happen, we hope the duration cycle for these new modules is quite long to off set the trouble.


And yet with a long cycle time, you'd have to wait to rebuff your fleet mates, who would then be out of buffs because they only last about 60 seconds. Trust me when I say that long cycle times will not make the problem you perceive any better.


if you have read teh blog from the beginnign to the end you'd know that MINIMAL STARTING point of a command burst buff is 60 seconds which WITH SKILLS and some other shiny stuff gets up to at least 90 seconds

giving you at least 30 seconds for reapplication of a buff

reading is hard stuff isn't it?
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#690 - 2016-08-30 22:17:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm actually kinda curious, but is the Rorq actually such a big deal as to cause more consternation than refactoring all of combat links? Is it really that central to gameplay in Eve, or are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

-Liang


Mining is the basis for everything in eve. Literally, EVERYTHING. Mining leads to everything else. Jacking up mining will ultimately affect everything else. Mostly by increasing prices and a decrease in supply.

So command boosts big whoppie. People will figure out new ways to work with boosters in fleet and on grid or not, but that won't majorly change the game.

I like the change for no OGBs, but mining needs to be addressed better.
CCP says there will be new changes incoming, but the rorqual changes are virtually useless to the current meta and along with the boosts nerf will decimate mining and industry. As the dominoes fall from the massive hit to mining and then industry and then everyone will notice the big increase in prices for everything.

Every time CCP does one of these ill-advised massive meta changes they lose subscriptions to rage quitters or people who cut back to fewer accounts due to the changes making their extra accounts useless. Lots of booster alts will go unsubbed pretty soon. My rorqual pilot is unsubbed and I'm not seeing a reason to bring him back online coming any time soon.
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#691 - 2016-08-30 22:17:17 UTC
Jathen Codexus wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something?


They are moderately expensive for the t2 models, but the yield boosts weren't removed. They were just rolled in with the cap reduction boost, so the crystal damage reduction link is just gravy.


thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now

[it was not that major buff though I think....]
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#692 - 2016-08-30 22:21:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed.

I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.

The capacitor and cycle time were rolled into the same boost.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see what you mean now. Thanks.
Qutain Malakovic
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#693 - 2016-08-30 22:21:46 UTC
Overall for the more combat minded players I can see this as an interesting addition to the game.
I am not one of those. I enjoy mining and building. I do this with an alt, not a corp or a large alliance. In low sec I park my rorqual outside of the station and let it boost me while I watch who comes into system so that I can fly my barge back to the station and dock.
Your changes will take away what I enjoy doing in this game. Leave mining as it is.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#694 - 2016-08-30 22:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now

[it was not that major buff though I think....]

15% Mining Yield
25% Command Link bonus
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#695 - 2016-08-30 22:28:51 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
thats only cycle time reduction the actuall yield bonus was in mining foreman skill and or implant - and that one seems be gone for what we know now

[it was not that major buff though I think....]

15% Mining Yield


for the mindlink implant, yeah :)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#696 - 2016-08-30 22:29:00 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed.

I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.

The capacitor and cycle time were rolled into the same boost.

My math may be off, but all I saw was a change because a strip was removed or added

However, that doesn't compensate for removal of the cap boost.

Feel free to correct me.

Iirc barge tweaks affected yield very little if at all. Covetor/hulk got more potential yield from an extra lowslot.

the mining foreman bonus (+10% yield) is missing

Cycle time and cap reduction were rolled into one

According to the updated blog, the cycle time boosts went up 15 percentage points (~42% currently, 57.3% new)

So o don't know the whole math scheme, but comparing current and new, absolute maximums indicate a slight yield buff. Going down from there I don't know how the picture looks.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#697 - 2016-08-30 22:34:31 UTC
Dont make any other changes then "boosts affect all fleet members on grid." and be done.

Or if you really have to, make it a 1,000 km bubble of boost range. all fleet members not in that bubble do not get boosts.

Thats all you had to do. none of this other crap that you are pushing makes any sense and the rorqual changes are completely awful.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#698 - 2016-08-30 22:38:17 UTC
Kleb Zellock wrote:
Players demand off-grid boosting be changed.

...

How to make it better:

-A titan should be able to boost a full grid size. Let it scale down from there based on hull size.
-Get rid of the weapon timer. Yes, there will be some abuse cases; but waiting around all the time for you booster to cool down is boring. Continue to loose boosts when you take gates, accel gates, jumps, wormholes and tether/dock.
-If you're going to suspect timer logi I see no reason to not suspect timer boosts.
-Figure out a way to reimburse those skills. You're triple dipping our wallets and that BS. We paid to train them. We shouldn't have to pay to remove them and the re-inject the same character at a loss. Shame on you.


*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all.

Gates, jumps, WHs, tether/dock are all session changes and will cut the boosts off, but it's not clear that accel gates will... they're not session changes, why would they cut off the boosts?

reimbursing at LEAST Fleet Command (if not also Wing Command and Leadership) would be nice to do, but... personally I want to eventually have all 3 of my toons in command ships (currently only 1 has perfect boosts), so I'll personally live either way. But anyone who never plans to train into and/or fly cmd DDs or cmd BCs or boosting capitals/indies will probably be wanting their SP back from leadership/WC/FC, for sure.
Pod Bot90
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#699 - 2016-08-30 22:43:48 UTC
CCP, when will the ORCA get something new?

Rorquals got all these shiny things... have you forgotten the orca? the stablemaster of new eden's work horses?

CCPlease, we need micro industrial core for orca !
Vyle Feelings
Cheesemonger Managerial Consortium
#700 - 2016-08-30 22:46:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.


I get that they're similar, but there are plenty of people who trained leadership skills just to *pass* boosts along but never intended to actually use active booster modules. For example, our corporation required Leadership V to be trained for anyone who wanted to rank up internally. We did that because otherwise fleet boosts couldn't be passed to squads, and nobody wanted to train leadership skills when they could be training more useful combat skills.

Similarly, I would have never trained FC 5 if I found out that the ultimate impact was going to be a few km on an active boost AOE module. At the time I trained it it was required to pass boosts to the entire fleet and was a necessity if I wanted to host a fleet with the maximum number of wings.

With the old boosts I would argue that some of these skills were a necessity, whereas now they will be a nicety. For argument's sake you can say that it's the same, that the larger AOE will still allow me to pass boosts to my entire fleet, however, in the new booster mechanic gameplay can compensate for a lack of skills (anchoring, better piloting, etc). In the old system there was no way to pass fleet boosts to all wings unless you had the proper skill trained.

I guess I don't understand why you *wouldn't* refund the SP? Seems like you could garner a lot of good will from some of the players bitter about the changes, and not really negatively impact those who think they want the skills.