These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#701 - 2016-08-30 23:05:03 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
¹ damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here?

Native speaker here.

...

I have no idea if it's right or not.


Affect = cAuse
Effect = sEE

for example - to sEE the Effects of the command bursts (love bombs), you can look at your timers/buffs - the rEsults
a command ship Affects the changes, as in, it cAuses them

That's how I remember it anyway.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#702 - 2016-08-30 23:08:48 UTC
Krystyn wrote:
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.


Sure, I get that. I guess I'm asking if the Rorq is currently central to mining. It wasn't last time I heard anything about it, and the fact your Rorq pilot is unsubbed is telling. Which is to say: it sounds like the rorq changes are effectively a no-op because nobody uses them anyway. The combat link changes, however, are not no-ops, and the discussion of a ship that nobody seems to actually use is overshadowing the discussion of ships that many people use.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#703 - 2016-08-30 23:10:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Moraguth wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
¹ damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here?

Native speaker here.

...

I have no idea if it's right or not.


Affect = cAuse
Effect = sEE

for example - to sEE the Effects of the command bursts (love bombs), you can look at your timers/buffs - the rEsults
a command ship Affects the changes, as in, it cAuses them

That's how I remember it anyway.

Effect is the noun (subject or recipient of the action)
Affect is the verb (action).

I remember: "The effect" and "To affect".

"Look, lady, I only speak two languages: English and bad English!" - Korben Dallas
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#704 - 2016-08-30 23:12:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Drazz Caylen
Drago Misharie wrote:
Why would you boost with tank when you will get just as much without a tank and without the boosts?
At this point, why bother with a booster anyway Lol You didn't quite catch the nature of the irony here.
If you are running a boosted mining ops in nullsec or lowsec, then because you have POS nearby or - in rarer cases - bounce through a circle of safespots permanently, which isn't exactly "afk". If you aren't afk, you're active. If you're active, might as well play it right.
The only reason to not tank is because you already own the territory and have the bottlenecks secured. At this pint, it's irrelevant if your booster sits in the belt or in the POS.
If you mine in unsecured territory, the reason to field the tank is so that you can live longer and not get volleyed off the field. The example was brought with bombs and is valid. At least in nullsec. If you do your ops in lowsec you're safe from bombing runs but doesn't mean you can't get other nasty crap thrown at you.
If you do not have guards to protect your ships, and know it's a hostile area, then you do risky mining. If you fly Mining Barges or Exhumers at this point, then that's your thing. Can't play eve wrong. Yet would point you to the Prospect and Endurance. Unless a smartbombing battleship uncloaks directly beside you, chances of survival are much higher in these. They're built for quite these ops.
I could continue spinning the story, but if you already risk fielding a mining ops in hostile territory, you might as well drag the booster on the field too. Wait for the ship announced in the second blog and see how it would add up in your scenario.

Deep Space Cowboy wrote:
As a miner I am extremely disapointed with your decision to force miners to siege their rorquals in a belt just to maintain the same yield we currently enjoy.
Why is everyone so in love with their numbers? Sheesh, why can't you put it into perspective?
You either mine with boost, or you don't. If that means less people boost the average yield is going to decrease which means market prices for ore will increase over time if the number of boosters decrease.
You get more ISK as mineral and ore prices go up in time.
You can sell your manufactured items at higher prices over time as base prices go up.
People ragequitting over afk boost changes means less miners too, so prices go up gradually.
And still you complain about your numbers, instead of waiting for the second devblog and ponder an actual way to be more inclusive of the proposed changes. Way to go.

Quote:
X Mayce: Oh and that i manually have to press the boosts every 1-2 minutes? - seriously? World of Warcraft Classic Paladin sends his greetings, please get a nice cloth dress for the rorqual *sarcasm*
Tau Cabalander: Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously? OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it.
For some reason X Mayce doesn't seem to think about the possibility of auto-repeat the module. Oh dear, having to check once per hour for reload is likely too much to ask for when people let their computer run while they're off working! Serves them right.

Lawrence Lawton wrote:
Calm down, ratter, and check your sense of entitlement. Incursions already have the most favourable risk:reward ratio of all activities in highsec. You get to grind out 100+ million ISK/hr in the safety of deadspace using exorbitantly blinged out faction ships and almost never get ganked. You already tip the offgrid (AFK) booster. Now he'll get onsite payout and work for the money.
That's funny, I remember about a graph where CCP debunked the so called Incursion income madness which always seems to be be thrown as a tantrum when any price spike occurs. In the general sense of ISK rewards for the player (which includes LP rewards), I remember Incursions being fairly down on the bottom.
And what's that with biggest income of all highsec activities? Doubtful.

Sylvia Kildare wrote:
*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all.
Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so.
Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now.
To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo.
Gulmuk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#705 - 2016-08-30 23:14:25 UTC
Well I have to say, I am an industrialist. Why are you screwing with boosts for the miners when the VERY small portion of the population wants COMBAT boosters to be on grid... Makes no sense to me.

I HAVE NEVER IN 7 YEARS OF EVE HEARD ANYONE SAY MINERS SHOULD HAVE TO BOOST FROM ON GRID. NEVER...

With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with several of the commenters about Rorquals being mothballed. The owners won't even bother to sell them because NOBODY will want them. They will be POINTLESS once these changes are made. I don't currently own a rorq, but I have owned 2 in the past. With the invent of citadels, and now the booster changes. I can very much see someone boosting from on grid with a BC or something similiar. Sure the boosts won't be as big, but you're NOT going to see a rorqual in a belt or anomaly. Unless someone gets really brave or REALLY stupid.

I can also agree you are going to see subs drop because of these proposed changes. Like one person already said. Once you kill the off-grid booster, the people with the mulitple accounts are going to stop using them. OR they might continue to use them, but now the amount of minerals they produce just went down substantially. So the prices of stuff all across EVE is going to sky rocket. It's bad enough that things in eve are already expensive enough. Perfect example is the T2 capital armor rep. 300M just build one of them. That's insane! SO they have to sell for about 350 just to make a decent profit, and then heaven forbid you want to make a faction armor rep. You get almost zero profit from manufacturing those.

Seems to me the devs are very keen on killing industry in eve. They have it out for the miners and they are the foundation EVE is built on. With the boost changes and Exhumer changes coming up. We're screwed good...
Abadayos
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#706 - 2016-08-30 23:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Abadayos
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Thogn wrote:

d) the booster is then proud to shout : " I am the primary target."


Seen a few people say this, and it doesn't make sense.

Primarying the booster ship will not remove the boosts he's sure to drop before you get him, so it's not the obviously correct tactical decision you are suggesting. You're just removing a ship who has likely already done the bulk of the "damage" he was likely to do. Probably better popping a logi or ECM boat or something.



Not true. You pop the booster and then 60 seconds later or so, all the boosts he gave are gone. Some fights can take longer than that, disengage/warp off to get better positioning or simply run away.

Killing the booster then the logi will work out. The easiest way would be to alpha the booster/s so logi can't do squat then go back to the normal grind of logi or if you just want the fight over, head shot the FC
Pretagos Omilas
Made in Wormhole Space
#707 - 2016-08-30 23:22:10 UTC
Gulmuk wrote:
(...)
I HAVE NEVER IN 7 YEARS OF EVE HEARD ANYONE SAY MINERS SHOULD HAVE TO BOOST FROM ON GRID. NEVER...
(...)



Really? I'd be surprised if no one already pointed out that risk less mining boosts (sitting inside pos field) are bad and against Risk/Reward principle of eve online... oh wait.... there is google and you can quickly find: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6260285#post6260285 for example.
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#708 - 2016-08-30 23:23:04 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:

Stealth Bomber stuff .

Fit for tank vs fit for yield = safe from lone bomber

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.


I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#709 - 2016-08-30 23:23:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Drazz Caylen wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Please tell me you didn't just write that: activate module manually? Seriously?
OMFG. That would be grounds for me to self-destruct my Rorqual for basic insurance, or reprocess it.
For some reason X Mayce doesn't seem to think about the possibility of auto-repeat the module. Oh dear, having to check once per hour for reload is likely too much to ask for when people let their computer run while they're off working! Serves them right.

Please put my post back in context.

If Rorqual pilots are being required to operate in a mining op (target asteroids, command drones, tractor cans, compress, pass crystals, take care of NPC spawns, etc), plus keep situationally aware in a hostile environment, via d-scan, intel channels, etc., then having to also press a button repeatedly is extremely annoying inconvenience that just adds to the workload (is it time yet? is it time yet? is it time yet?)

If auto-repeat exists, I have no complaints.
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#710 - 2016-08-30 23:30:35 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:


Lawrence Lawton wrote:
Calm down, ratter, and check your sense of entitlement. Incursions already have the most favourable risk:reward ratio of all activities in highsec. You get to grind out 100+ million ISK/hr in the safety of deadspace using exorbitantly blinged out faction ships and almost never get ganked. You already tip the offgrid (AFK) booster. Now he'll get onsite payout and work for the money.

That's funny, I remember about a graph where CCP debunked the so called Incursion income madness which always seems to be be thrown as a tantrum when any price spike occurs. In the general sense of ISK rewards for the player (which includes LP rewards), I remember Incursions being fairly down on the bottom.
And what's that with biggest income of all highsec activities? Doubtful.


I'd love to see that chart, considerign that there are actually high sec incursion based communities overlyspecialising into setting new records of isk/per hour earned

although if said graph was something like overall income from incursion running players per month [and averaged out] I can totally see it "averaging" quite low - these record breakers does not run them all the time, because you know at some point you have more than enought iskes for any of yoru needs and then willingfullness to ru nthese things drops..... and also these guys are actually quite minor part of all incursion running players with probably quite a few ppl who goes really low with incursion incomes.

and then truth be said - as far as I know incursioners they [mostly] won;t whine - they'll adapt and keep going
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#711 - 2016-08-30 23:30:48 UTC
Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.

Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.

Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#712 - 2016-08-30 23:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
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'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that.

I will have no use for the puny range bonuses, and being able to pass on boosts from other characters is NOT the same as being able to increase the range of the boosts you are giving out.

There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two.

One of these two roles (Fleet command) is very explicitly removed from the game, this should be a no brainer that CCP will reimburse those skills.

As for the second role (Fleet boost), while CCP is trying to spin it like it's basically the same thing than off grid links, this couldn't be much further away from the truth. The role is wildly different, the usability is wildly different, the mecanics are nearly the complete opposite (close range vs system wide, need to be unprobable vs need to be tanky, temporary vs permanent, trickle down boosts vs free-for-all, etc...). So, while the first role is a no brainer in term of skill refund, the second is not, but refusing to refund it seems like an act of bad faith.

And how can you say that it "impacts the same type of gameplay"? I thought the whole point was that current links gameplay was terrible. Straight It's NOT the "same type of gameplay" anymore, that's why it's called a revamp.

I hope you reconsider the decision of not refunding the SP.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#713 - 2016-08-30 23:44:31 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Jalen Mynar wrote:
yes, but whats the point of a mining boost ship with combat links?

Triple battleship NPC spawns with their escorts.



I had that exact config drop on me when I was solo mining in my skiff and the only danger was whether they shot at my drones or not. Its slightly annoying to replace them, but that it. Heck I once kept two bs rats as pets for about an hour before someone stopped by randomly and blew them up. May JoBob and Francis my beloved Blood Pirates rest in pieces.

Who's your end of the world buddy?

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#714 - 2016-08-30 23:45:35 UTC
GeeBee wrote:
Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.

Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.

Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.


I disagree with your opinion. Some of us (speaking definitely for myself, probably for others too) aren't great at direct pvp. I do a pretty good job at support roles though. Running links, logi, scouting... that type of stuff is more fun for me and I'm way better at that than brawling. In fact, I'd like to see more support roles.

And as for only having passive bonuses... CCP and I agree that those mechanics are bad. Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#715 - 2016-08-30 23:47:40 UTC
Altrue wrote:
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'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that.

I will have no use for the puny range bonuses, and being able to pass on boosts from other characters is NOT the same as being able to increase the range of the boosts you are giving out.

There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two.

One of these two roles (Fleet command) is very explicitly removed from the game, this should be a no brainer that CCP will reimburse those skills.

As for the second role (Fleet boost), while CCP is trying to spin it like it's basically the same thing than off grid links, this couldn't be much further away from the truth. The role is wildly different, the usability is wildly different, the mecanics are nearly the complete opposite (close range vs system wide, need to be unprobable vs need to be tanky, temporary vs permanent, trickle down boosts vs free-for-all, etc...). So, while the first role is a no brainer in term of skill refund, the second is not, but refusing to refund it seems like an act of bad faith.

I hope you reconsider.

Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded:

Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from.

I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them.

To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy.
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#716 - 2016-08-30 23:49:55 UTC
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
(...)
* "super weapon" that only postpones destruction


Couldn't your corp mates just use that time to reship into pvp ships and fight for your safety? Or would that be too much work and you just want to have a risk free reward (like possed mining boosts)?



Depending on the skills they have your beloved corp mates my simply add to the kill mails by reshipping and coming to help. Only thing they accomplished is to further delay the inevitable destruction of said Rorqual by being a distraction.

Who's your end of the world buddy?

Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#717 - 2016-08-30 23:51:29 UTC
so just whats the tally so far on folks canceling, unsubbing, unskilling their alts so far by November?

whats the going price on a rorqual since its nothing but a juicy fat target?

hows the price on those warfare link modules currently in game.. will we get any kind of reimbursement for them? or will they just convert to what ever they're becoming...

and the processor mod.. so thats now becoming a rig.. does this mean we get a free T2 rig? or will that rig just be a T1?

how much are skill extractors?? can we get some free ones once these changes go live since ccp refuses to reimburse SP?

im sure this is going to make the news around all mmo websites.. and for the most part i'll be there explaining why its very important for a paying player to avoid eve at all cost just cause they work so hard on making the game worse year by year.

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#718 - 2016-08-30 23:53:59 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded:

Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from.

I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them.

To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy.


It's almost as if CCP doesn't want to be able to measure how many people will not put their SP back into the leadership category. The right move is very simple, when you change a skill enough that you have to change its name and description, then refund the SP. Even for the entierty of leadership skills, it will not be that big of a deal: It's one of the smallest skill categories in the game, and it's not something that most characters have trained a lot.

And even if the amount of refunded SPs were really truly massive, it'd still be a drop of water next to the average SP of people who can afford to invest into leadership skills.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

The Receptionist
Novartis Corporation.
#719 - 2016-08-31 00:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: The Receptionist
Altrue wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Playing devils advocate, because I'm still upset another skill wasn't refunded:

Unfortunately there is a precedent: Advanced Industry, which has no resemblance to the Material Efficiency skill that the skill points were moved from.

I'm sure there have been a few others that I've missed because I wasn't as salty about them.

To me it is a no-brainer: CCP can stop all the complaints by refunding all the Leadership skills, and any skills that require leadership skills as a prerequisite. Problem solved, and customers happy.


It's almost as if CCP doesn't want to be able to measure how many people will not put their SP back into the leadership category. The right move is very simple, when you change a skill enough that you have to change its name and description, then refund the SP. Even for the entierty of leadership skills, it will not be that big of a deal: It's one of the smallest skill categories in the game, and it's not something that most characters have trained a lot.

And even if the amount of refunded SPs were really truly massive, it'd still be a drop of water next to the average SP of people who can afford to invest into leadership skills.



^^ Indeed. I took all leadership skills out of my training queue as soon as I saw these proposed changes. I suspect CCP more likely is hoping by ******* up a skill, they will force people who trained the super-long leaderhsip skills will have to pay them more money to get their injectors back via skill extraction.

Also, these changes make the rorqual useless. This is the fozzie-sov of off-grid combat link rebalances.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#720 - 2016-08-31 00:05:20 UTC
Lonan O'Labhradha wrote:
Just because people are talking about something doesn't mean they don't want it. I have wanted on-grid boosting forever, and CCP has been promising it forever. I think people just want it to be done correctly. Command ships hanging in empty space is not fun content during a battle. You are supporting the fleet, but have no hope of ever getting a killmail. It's boring, crappy content facilitated by the boosting mechanics.


I'm like 80%-90% a PVE player as I only occasionally PVP in NPSI fleets such as Spectre and RvB Ganked and the like when I feel the itch or get advance notice about one of my fave fleet comps coming up (HACs and navy/pirate faction battleships mostly), but I've been in numerous fleets where either the FC + maybe one or two backup pilots were in ships such as the Vulture (for the bulk of the DPS ships being sniper Eagle/Railgus especially), the Damnation, or the Absolution... and on grid, I mean. I've also missed out on a couple of ALL Command Ship fleets due to at the time not having a booster alt and not having trained my two mains into command ships yet (still haven't).

One was all Absos and the other was all Sleipnirs... or was it Vultures?... either way. Either way, I guarantee you plenty of command ship pilots got on tons of killmails those days. I was also in a Nightmare fleet last Halloween (yay for theme fleets!) where we got wrecked by PL Sleipnirs, so... yeah. ;)

On-grid command ships have already been used, they just aren't used all the time.

FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS.


Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).

Mafone wrote:
Also unless I am very much mistaken we will start to see Sleipnir's online for high skill players and groups which will decrease rather than increase ship diversity in fleets. Ppl who cant afford/fly these may use a T1/Faction BC doctrine where everyone boosts but not sure this is the best way to go.


Ever since I was a 1 month old Gallente droneboat pilot in a Vexor and then a Myrmidon my dream ships were Ishtars and Eoses... Ishtar I trained into 2 years ago but Eos I've only been able to fly because I got a booster alt. I dream of triple Eos in the somewhat-near future, but... triple (or maybe just double... no drone assist to help with 3 like with Eoses) Sleipnir would be pretty hot, too. EPIC ALL SLEIPNIR ACTION!

Diversity is always going to be there, if not as wide-ranging as some would like. Before sleips everywhere it was all Machs everywhere or all Tengus or all Proteus/Legion blobs or all Ishtars or all Drakes or all original-pre-nerf/"balance"-Hurricanes everywhere. And on and on it goes.