These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#741 - 2016-08-31 01:03:16 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:
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.

Blah Blah Blah.....worm holes
Wednesday Askira
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#742 - 2016-08-31 01:07:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Thanks for the feedback so far everyone!

A few Q&As based on some stuff I'm seeing come up in the thread:

Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts?
A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet

Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch?
A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.

Q: If a ship loses armor links, will they explode?
A: Nope. If it worked like that jumping out of a Wolf-Rayet would be a deathtrap. If you have less than 20% armor remaining and lose a max-bonused Armor Reinforcement burst effect your armor will be set to 0 but your hull won't be damaged in any way. In some cases there may actually be a deficit of armor that must be repaired through before repairers can start bringing you above 0% again, to prevent exploits. This works exactly the same way as the current mechanics if you offline a layered plating module, or leave a fleet with an armored warfare mindlink effect, or jump out of a wolf-rayet wormhole system.

Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid?
A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.

Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills?
A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans.


We've also made some initial adjustments to the numbers thanks to some of your feedback so far.
We're going to tone down the scan res bonus from info bursts since very high levels of scan res can sometimes become degenerate (instalock camps), and buffing some other aspects of the info boosts to compensate.
We're also going to buff the mining links significantly since this transition is going to be especially dramatic for some miners used to the old system. All of these changes have been edited into the dev blog so you can take a look there to see how they fit into the big picture.

Information Command: Sensor Optimization: 18% (+2%) targeting range, 9% (-7%) scan resolution
Information Command: Electronic Hardening: 18% (+2%) sensor strength, 9% (+1%) RSD/WD Resistances

Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Field Enhancement: 30% (+2%) increased range
Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Optimization: 15% (+3%) reduced cycle time and cap use
Mining Foreman: Mining Equipment Preservation: 15% (+3%) reduced mining crystal volitility

T1 Industrial Core (while active): 100% (+50%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active): 200% (+100%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range

Rorqual: 5% (+1%) bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level


The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone.

Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones?
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#743 - 2016-08-31 01:09:27 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
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.

"making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot.

The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it.
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#744 - 2016-08-31 01:14:10 UTC
Drago Misharie wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
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.

"making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot.

The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it.


Ah, I never use the T1 barges, so fair enough on that point. Even with the remote repping abilities of the orca or rorqual it wouldn't help if you get blown up with one shot. To be fair though, the lack of tank on those ships means you probably shouldn't be using them in such dangerous areas anyway. Or they should be as paranoid as WH people and ready to warp if a mouse farts in the next room.

I got a Feature Added!

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

Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#745 - 2016-08-31 01:17:17 UTC
Wednesday Askira wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:




The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone.

Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones?



That's not a bad train of thought. Have the panic button last its thirty seconds and burn out as it does now. However, if the roqual is sieged the panic button force cancels the siege and burns out the industrial core. Yes it would be expensive to replace the the indy core but a couple hundred million vs 2.5 billion I know which one I'd take. Especially if you can make your own indy cores. You could recoup the loss fairly quickly under non siege boosts if you didn't already have a back up stashed some where. This also aligns with the unsiege transition time fairly closely.

Who's your end of the world buddy?

Flappy Beefcurtains
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#746 - 2016-08-31 01:18:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]


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.




Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup.

Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.
Titus Cole Dooley
Fuel Blocks for Dante
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#747 - 2016-08-31 01:20:08 UTC
The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options.
Maraner
The Executioners
#748 - 2016-08-31 01:22:08 UTC
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:



Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]


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.




Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup.

Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.



Agree. I have multiple toons trained up to use all links, now pretty much redundant. SP refund to those that request it please.
Akoha Uisen
Doomheim
#749 - 2016-08-31 01:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Akoha Uisen
I am an industrialist who has 10 accounts. I have 1 rorqual pilot, 9 barge pilots, and several of my characters can fly a freighter. All of my characters can build capital ship parts. When I log into EVE, I go to work... and it is hard work. I sit down and I crank out a capital ship in about 10 hours of mining with 10 accounts active running that whole time. My room heats up to about 95 degrees from my graphics card and CPU (which are both CLC cooled) pumping heat into my room. There are times when I am sweating from mining, because it gets that hot. Some days, I feel like I'm literally in the salt mines over here.

I pour my heart into this profession that I love. I simply do not understand why it is imperative that off-grid boosting for the rorqual be taken away. Every hour, with 10 accounts and max rorqual boosts I can churn about 250-300m in minerals out. To put that into perspective, an afk ishtar running anomalies can make 60mil an hour easy, and with 10 accounts, can rackshaw up about 600mil isk in LIQUID isk. That is not mineral that has to be turned into something or shipped to its destination to be sold. That doesn't include index job costs, or production costs.

The fact is, I cant kill anyone with a mining laser. As hard as I try, they just dont let me activate on enemy ships. Perhaps if they did I could see where an on-grid boosting requirement would make sense. But this change really does not make sense. It seems to me like this is all motivated by the desire to have dank rorqual frags, and I can assure you if these changes go through my rorqual (and probably a lot of others as well) will be reprocessed and the parts used to make something else.

I'm not upset at the changes because my rorqual is going to die, to be honest I can build a new one in around 2 days plus build time, what frustrates me is that these changes are just going to make my job a lot harder. It will take me twice as long to do what I do now and it will be way more of a headache than I want to bother with. I already have to go mine up heavy water for my rorqual boosts. Now I am going to have produce ammo, monitor boosting effects, build the boosting charges, etc for my rorqual to boost with, while then subjecting it to extreme peril for no additional bonus than what I have now.

What is the actual impact of the changes that are recommended right now? Well, it's pretty simple. Everything that has been announced is only going to serve to make the job that I do even harder. Everyone I play with says to me repeatedly, "How can you do that... mining is so boring... I'd go crazy. I hate it. Mining almost made me quit the game" So I ask you, why? Why is this necessary? I already make less income per hour than most other activities in the game with a similar number of accounts, it just doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and for clarity, while all of the "income" math above is theoretical, I don't actually make that in liquid isk. Because most of what I do is steeply discounted to my corp, used to build large projects, or given away... Like my free T1 ship (of any hull size) program for my corporation. I'm not in this to make the ISK in the game. I'm in this to give my friends the materials they need to get back into the fight. In other words, I am a tried and true industrialist.

So, I ask you again, why do you insist on making this harder with no gain to an industrial pilot?


I have a few suggestions on how this can be done differently:

1. Remove industrial boosts from the game. They already offer no PVP advantage, and the changes to boosting is being balanced for a PVP purpose, not a PVE purpose. In their place do one of the following things:

A. Give us new skills for miners to train that focus on cycle time, efficiency of cap usage, and yield.
or
B. Roll the current maximum boosted amount calculations into the ship bonuses themselves.

2. If the Rorqual needs a new niche role to give it more flavor, give the rorqual a new hold, one for compressed minerals. Give the rorqual a new ability mineral compression , and a special hanger that has an exceptionally large volume but can accomodate only compressed minerals.

3. Remove industrial boosts from the game. Turn the porpoise, orca and rorqual into battlecruiser hull size, battleship hull size and capital hull size mining barges. Go big or go home.


Also, as cute as the PANIC button is, the PANIC button is basically just ULTIMATE ECM 2K16. I know how much Fozzie hates ECM. Why are we making ships invulnerable for set periods of time? Thats not exactly engaging gameplay.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#750 - 2016-08-31 01:26:39 UTC
Denavit wrote:
So much tears and peanut brained people. Lol stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus...

Like reprocess Rorqs and sell the skill points, got it

Thank you
Arakoinae Veldor
Aphelion Monks
#751 - 2016-08-31 01:27:53 UTC
Does this mean we have to actually manually activate the booster every 1 or 2 minutes when mining, It wont be continuous? What a pain that would be.
Drago Misharie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#752 - 2016-08-31 01:32:53 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Drago Misharie wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
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.

"making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot.

The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it.


Ah, I never use the T1 barges, so fair enough on that point. Even with the remote repping abilities of the orca or rorqual it wouldn't help if you get blown up with one shot. To be fair though, the lack of tank on those ships means you probably shouldn't be using them in such dangerous areas anyway. Or they should be as paranoid as WH people and ready to warp if a mouse farts in the next room.

We can use them today and we can use them tomorrow without boosts. So why would we boost?

There aren't any rooms protecting us, anyone who warps will warp right at zero cloaked ready to target the booster with a bomb to dumpster 1.4b in mining ships. The Rorq will be safe since it can tank it.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#753 - 2016-08-31 01:36:33 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
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.


There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.

The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.
Titus Cole Dooley
Fuel Blocks for Dante
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#754 - 2016-08-31 01:43:03 UTC
Titus Cole Dooley wrote:
The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options.



I mean hell its got a CLONE VAT BAY!!!!
lord xavier
Rubbed Out
#755 - 2016-08-31 01:46:12 UTC
While I enjoy the thought of a rorqual being forced into the belt. I think the mining boost change is pretty stupid. Giving them a weapons timer already stops them from docking. POSes are going away "soon." So, with a 1 minute timer + 1 minute cycle timer on your links. You've 2 minutes best case scenerio and 1 minute worst case (for you) that you cannot dock in an astrahouse/NPC station with a rorqual. That seems pretty well off to kill/bump it off the docking of whatever it is sat on. Sure, for a fortizar thats a pretty HUGE docking radius.

Maybe, make the Rorq have a specific AU range. So, some days your mining site is in range of your citadel(s). Other days it isn't and you either go without boosts or you warp into the site, use a safe, use an orca or whatever this new ore command ship will be.

I'd rather have a chance to kill a Rorqual, then to never see them ever used cause most wont risk a rorq everyday. Where they may if they have a random belt spawn outside of the AU range so they risk it that one day because of the "Well, its just this one day." instead of "Well **** this. I am just gonna sell this damn thing."
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#756 - 2016-08-31 01:52:44 UTC
GeeBee wrote:


There is no defending bonuses, they are just bad, if you want to fly a booster cause you don't want to be in combat that is a poor excuse to maintain bonuses. Scouts, Covert probing warpins, logi, bombing, e-war there are many other things, trying to say we need bonuses because there aren't enough other things to do is very poor.

The passive bonuses for being in a fleet are minor and somewhat universal, the active links have been a balance issue for years and the best thing to do is remove them. They have little redeeming quality other than having extra skills to train which increases CCP's revenue and which is the same argument for not removing them and refunding the skillpoints which will reduce revenue.


I disagree. I defend the bonuses and I think they add interesting gameplay choices. Removing them is your solution, and while I respect your views, I still think you are 100% wrong. They have redeeming qualities, they aren't just extra skills to train, and have little effect on CCPs revenue. It's not like you stop paying CCP once you learn all the skills in the game... you'll be paying regardless. (Even that guy who made a fresh character and spent trillions of isk on injectors to max out all the skills is still paying to play the game, he just has nothing left to train)

I disagree with removing choice and depth from the game, which is what you propose by saying boosts should be removed.

for example:

ECM has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. ECM should just be removed!

T2 weapons don't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. T2 weapons should just be removed!

Cloaking has been broken for years and doesn't really add anything to the game besides making you train more skills which increases CCP's revenue. Cloaking should just be removed!

Assertions, without evidence, and conclusions about motives, which are pulled out of thin air, are not effective ways to argue your point and effect change.

I got a Feature Added!

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#757 - 2016-08-31 02:01:22 UTC
What's funny to me is that the Rorqual will still offer better mining boosts than any other ship, even without being in Industrial Core mode. Despite that, people who had to know their "hide in the POS shield" playstyle was on life support for several years are completely freaking out.

It is interesting to see that people will actually have to fly the Rorqual now. They'll have to push buttons more than once and stuff. The Horror! The Horror! The real impact of this is not that the Rorqual will actually be at risk now, but that it will actually require regular player input, making it harder to multibox the ship.

I know I have trained up a Rorqual booster, three Exhumer pilots, and a hauler/scout pilot. In the past, I could easily forget about the Rorqual pilot in his POS, and focus on watching three Exhumers, the hauler or scout, and intel channels. Now I have to pay more attention to another pilot.

As someone who has always relied on multiple characters, I'm noticing the subtle shift CCP has in place to make each pilot matter more and require more player input. I don't have a problem with it, but I am noticing it. It's most evident in the recent Carrier changes. In the past, I could undock three Carriers, drop sentries, assign drones, and establish remote repair chains with ease. Now, that it is all but impossible to multibox Carriers with any degree of efficiency. But flying a single Carrier is a much more fun and engaging play style. I did decide to sell off a few of my Carriers because of these changes, but on the whole it's a good change. As this design philosophy sneaks into more game play aspects, it may eventually cause me to unsubscribe a couple more accounts, but I think in the long run it will make Eve a better, more engaging game.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#758 - 2016-08-31 02:06:37 UTC
Arakoinae Veldor wrote:
Does this mean we have to actually manually activate the booster every 1 or 2 minutes when mining, It wont be continuous? What a pain that would be.


Have to hope it has auto repeat - but would also like to know for sure.

If we have to hit F1, F2 and F3 every couple of minutes, that would be the type of mindless game play that should be avoided, not embraced.

Those of us who run Orcas/Rorquals do risk assets every day. We put a good amount of valuable squishy targets on the field that aren't designed to defend or fight back against other players.

We are not at AFK while mining. We are attentive and engaged.

When we are not running our mining toons, we might leave the boosting ship active in a POS so that it can serve newer players that have only one account, but this seems to be a good thing as it gives those players access to a more level playing field.

We also boost for solo and small groups of alliance pilots who mine in various belts or anoms. Now we'll have to all huddle up in the same place. Makes much more sense to spread the miners out over the system, unless there's a valid need to encourage more players to invest in Orca or Rorqual pilots.

Rethink treating mining boosters the same as PvP boosters. We risk ships. We do not need more busy work.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#759 - 2016-08-31 02:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Glathull
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:

Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.


https://youtu.be/Xpugp6DIb3I?t=187

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Zifrian
Aideron Robotics
#760 - 2016-08-31 02:39:57 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
What's funny to me is that the Rorqual will still offer better mining boosts than any other ship, even without being in Industrial Core mode. Despite that, people who had to know their "hide in the POS shield" playstyle was on life support for several years are completely freaking out.

It is interesting to see that people will actually have to fly the Rorqual now. They'll have to push buttons more than once and stuff. The Horror! The Horror! The real impact of this is not that the Rorqual will actually be at risk now, but that it will actually require regular player input, making it harder to multibox the ship.

I know I have trained up a Rorqual booster, three Exhumer pilots, and a hauler/scout pilot. In the past, I could easily forget about the Rorqual pilot in his POS, and focus on watching three Exhumers, the hauler or scout, and intel channels. Now I have to pay more attention to another pilot.

As someone who has always relied on multiple characters, I'm noticing the subtle shift CCP has in place to make each pilot matter more and require more player input. I don't have a problem with it, but I am noticing it. It's most evident in the recent Carrier changes. In the past, I could undock three Carriers, drop sentries, assign drones, and establish remote repair chains with ease. Now, that it is all but impossible to multibox Carriers with any degree of efficiency. But flying a single Carrier is a much more fun and engaging play style. I did decide to sell off a few of my Carriers because of these changes, but on the whole it's a good change. As this design philosophy sneaks into more game play aspects, it may eventually cause me to unsubscribe a couple more accounts, but I think in the long run it will make Eve a better, more engaging game.

I don't think people have an issue to put it in a belt to mine. They have an issue with putting it in siege mode for 5 minutes in a belt and become vulnerable for not enough return to justify it.

It's a poor mechanic and doesn't fit well with mining.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder