These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#761 - 2016-08-31 02:40:40 UTC
Funny how miners think my sieged Dread can hit 24 AU from within the POS shield where I sit AFK blapping stuff.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#762 - 2016-08-31 02:40:57 UTC
Titus Cole Dooley wrote:
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!!!!

Okay, that made me exhale my beverage.

The CVB is the stupidest thing since it doesn't actually work like a station clone facility, and it doesn't hold many clones even at max skill.

Only skill I haven't maxed for my Rorqual.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#763 - 2016-08-31 02:42:12 UTC
Let's dedicate a section to Fozzie only. I actually had fun going through all the skills again Lol

CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
First, thank you for the responses after going through the entire thread.
Second, let me then start with the suggestion of not increasing, but also not diminishing returns. So how about 5% per skill? Because this would be much more in line with the theme of EvE skills.
I say this because, thirdly... no, you don't put in diminishing returns "almost everywhere" in the skills area. Take a look at skills building up on previous skills doing the same or something similar and cross reference these to your claim:

It's not as much DR on skills as believed.

TL;DR = Diminishing returns in statistical benefits are not the majority among the skills in eve online. They are in the very minority. I found a total of 4 (four) skills which I would consider a definite and doubtless diminishing return. An extra 3 (three) if I give them the situational benefit of the doubt. If anything, we can see a trend that players benefit from subsequent skills trained equally or more than from their prerequisites, which stands in complete contrast to what Fozzie said.

Thus I repeat my proposition again with a compromise: If you don't want to increase the percentage of skills as suggested then put them equal.
15km + 25% + 25% + 25% nets a total of 29,29km base range from skills, which is very close to your proposed 29,25km base range from 30% + 25% +20%.

I still hope you give Leadership skill ranks another pass. x8 and x12 just for fleet size is ridiculous, especially if you want to remove their requirement for squads and wings. All other leadership skills cap out at x5, and x6 for the specialist one. You said yourself, you want to lower skill entry barriers, and I'm all with you on that. Just unallocate excess SP if you lower skill ranks when people already have them trained.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#764 - 2016-08-31 02:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeBee
Moraguth wrote:
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.


ECM is a lot of skillpoints but isn't broken per say, cloaking is 1 skill and its the afk cloaking that makes it silly, T2 weapons have a purpose of progression and shooting at each other and almost everyone will train them eventually.

Boosting skills are trained by few characters for a specialty purpose that is overly important. As a fleet member I don't want my ship to be dependent on another characters affecting my ships stats. As a pilot being a booster is more of a chore than gameplay. The only logical reason to keeping boosts is so you can keep using them to dunk newbies in highsec / lowsec that don't even knows what boosts are. In large nullsec fights its pretty much a mandate. Most of anyone that knows anything is over boosts, the best solution is to remove them.

The prime driver for keeping boosts is injector bait, something that *needs to be done on an alt account that you need to be able to compete* I'm sure there is a definite revenue factor for that, to deny that is silly.

Skill injectors as a whole in the short term have given CCP some major revenue but in the long run it will reduce the number of players willing to play the game because it makes the game even more pay to win, on a small scale / multiboxing boosts are pay to win. CCP is addressing the power creep of skillpoints in ways to monetize them rather than properly addressing them. there's a year's worth of skill training for *core skills* that everyone ends up training just to fly a subcap and be competitive. in the age of free to play games this marketing scheme is so non-competitive we should expect our playerbase to dwindle because nobody wants to drop that much cash or time in order to catch up.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#765 - 2016-08-31 02:46:45 UTC
This thread is getting ridiculous. Perhaps CCP should just make it so that miners can stay tethered to their citadel and remotely send mining drones to the belts. But even then people would complain because their drones were vulnerable.

Being on grid to do something powerful is not an unreasonable request, people.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Titus Cole Dooley
Fuel Blocks for Dante
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#766 - 2016-08-31 02:58:19 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Titus Cole Dooley wrote:
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!!!!

Okay, that made me exhale my beverage.

The CVB is the stupidest thing since it doesn't actually work like a station clone facility, and it doesn't hold many clones even at max skill.

Only skill I haven't maxed for my Rorqual.


Yeah same here. I was using the CVB and a example of the ships original design intention. Now with citadels they could make it happen. I think it would make the Rorqual more relevant and exciting than what CCP is offering now.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#767 - 2016-08-31 03:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I mostly like this new concept of fleet boosting. I like how it might put command ships on grid with proper fits, and that the base number of links fits neatly within the utility highs.

My main question is about faster ships like interceptors. I feel like their gameplay will become awkward when bonuses wear off while they are at far range. Between extending the range of command bursts or giving receiving ships a bonus to effect duration, I think it should be a role bonus on the interceptor hull (for example).

I like seeing prerequisites being busted down some more, and I hope you keep going. I think role bonuses could also be distributed in ship skill levels rather than in lump sums. I get the notion of "identity" for different ships but I think it detracts from the diversity of ships more than it contributes. Abstract adjustments like booster duration make sense as role bonuses, far more than 100% bonuses to damage.

The reduction in baseline links to command ships feels like a doube hit to small gangs. Large fleets can toss in more boosters without changing their fleet composition much. In a gang of 10 or so, however, each additional booster is from 9% to 6% of the fleet. Combined with the limited range of bursts in fast gangs, this need for more boosters is hard.

Command processors. Seeing them go into rigs seems sucky. I would rather see a bolder move like hard-limiting boosting ships to their base number of links, such as one or two. Actually, if T3 boosters and command destroyer bonuses are weaker, I would agree with their link limits becoming 2.

This way small gangs won't be hit as hard for requiring several command destroyers. You also won't see bastard fits for ships trying to cram four or five links. Go that extra bit to ensure command burst ships get more representative use, and function as proper ships with unique utility highs.
JuricM
The Church of Awesome
Awesome Alliance
#768 - 2016-08-31 03:19:31 UTC
Question:
As a means of penalizing "Head-Shotting" Fleet FCs, and as incentive for FCs to use command ships, can this system also be used to "de-buff" the aggressing fleet for killing boosting ships? It could perhaps give the negative of the boosts most recently applied to its own fleet prior to the kill.

Or maybe this belongs on Rise's bad idea of the day thread...
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#769 - 2016-08-31 03:40:38 UTC
Yup. Definitely the Bad Idea oneliners.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#770 - 2016-08-31 03:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Drazz Caylen
For anyone not yet understanding why they touch the way mining boosts work as well... imagine the segregation of one sitting in afk safety again while others churn away with the boosts, while in a different constellation, in a different region people decide which command ship to primary. No, that doesn't sound reasonable at all.

Tau Cabalander wrote:
1) Please put my post back in context.

2) 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?)

3) If auto-repeat exists, I have no complaints.

1) Done. Sorry, I messed up the formatting. Wanted to consolidate both quotes into one but didn't in the end, just kept writing.

2) Sounds like a normal pilot's worth of interaction to me. You don't sit in a capital industrial ship for no reason if you don't want to be called a F1 monkey Blink Also, following devblog, you only need to reactivate the module once per minute if it doesn't auto-activate. Considering the boosts start out at one minute you have plenty of time to hit those F keys again and don't need to be on the spot with that 60 second mark.

3) Exactly. I really doubt they're going to put a module which has - by CCPs own words - ammo with low cost and small cargo size NOT going to auto-repeat. And in the case of doubt for more control, like all regular cycling modules, auto-repeat can be turned off.


Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
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
Precisely, that's where I was going. While they make decent ISK / hour on the bottom end, they are not a big factor compared to the overall economy. They're also limited in numbers due to Incursion site payout limitations and individual spawns of said sites. I also wouldn't wonder if these isk/hour figures from the incursion runners are cherrypicked during a certain window. But It's fine, I'm not bashing them. 100Mill / hour isn't exactly lightyears away from certain other highsec endeavours.
Also, anyone saying "screw you incursion runners!" should just suck it up and try it for themselves. If you can't beat the beast and feel bad, then embrace it and become a part. Twisted
That being said, there are alternatives. But nobody should complain about someone else getting more ISK for a different activity when everything here is choice and preference.


GeeBee wrote:
Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Typical kneejerk response. Contrary to the bounty system which barely affects anything of the game, even through an iterated process, the boost system is widely used. If you removed it to work on it offline, the outrage and fallout would be much bigger. If you removed Bounty system for it to - eventually? - return, nobody would cry a river. There is nothing lost, the ISK reinstated. Remove fleet boosting, and entire characters become obsolete. No, it's far more important to revamp this design and not scrap it entirely, which would be a tremendous mistake.



Altrue wrote:
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.

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.
Heh, smart. That's a good outlook on the situation, have my appreciative nod for what it is worth.


Tau Cabalander wrote:
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.
I for one wouldn't be happy with a skill refund. I'd skill everything back into leadership, else I wouldn't be able to fly my Command ships into the high water mark. Still, what exactly do you do with an alt you no longer want or need? Oh sure, spend money for skill injectors to sell these points off. Except not, since if this would actually work, I'm sure CCP would totally do it. Looks like it won't, so they don't. Not all players are mindless, wallet throwing lemmings.
... though would they even spend money for Aurum? Might as well use dat Aurum sitting holes in the wallet from years ago, and burn those Aurum tokens. Or just throw ISK at skill extractors, what gives. End of the line remains the same - refund, reskill is not a feasible solution from no point of view. Haven't you realized these are substantial amounts of skillpoints involved and CCP wants to make money with skill injectors in case you really want to respecc?

I still expect the amount of players wanting to swap skillsets from leadership to something else or to become a skill siphon for ISK to be in the minority.
If the topic keeps spiraling into trading blows with miners wanting to keep their boosts, nothing will help other than repeating every single page how this is not the final devblog, and the new command industrial might just fit all your needs.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#771 - 2016-08-31 04:05:14 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
Actually I normally Fly a Griffin/Kitsune, and I'm normally 50km+ from the Furball in the middle, the Siege Skills/Links are normally all that stops me from being 1 Lucky Volleyed off the field, allowing me to warp recharge shields and warp back in from a different area/angle and continue.

Perhaps you need to learn how to fly instead of staying stuck to an anchor :P


In case you were wondering, those siege links add roughly 300 EHP to a Griffin, and 500 to a Kitsune. Ships which, if currently available evidence is to be believed, you don't actually fly that often. You wouldn't be posting on an alt making spurious claims would you? Because honestly, trying to make a point of the importance of Siege Links to a Griffin smacks of desperation.

The number of times that I've flown out in sub 10% structure, that extra few EHP is all that is needed to be the difference between being popped in 1 shot or 2.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#772 - 2016-08-31 04:18:05 UTC
Quoted for truth.

Zappity wrote:
It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change.
Seconded. Mmmmmmmmmmmm... tasty. Not even sarcastic. Tasty for all participants.

Sylvia Kildare wrote:
1) Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.

2) But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs:::
1) Only because they didn't have a problem doesn't mean the system was good. It was just convenient. Not good. For the booster sitting behind a forcefield, or bouncing safespots, it was just flat out risk-free, which is never good in a game like this.

2) Touché. They messed up a good number of things which were not broken or unfair and still degraded the experience for no tangible benefit or reason at all.


Drago Misharie wrote:
Blah Blah Blah.....worm holes
If you don't give me sufficient information, I can only work with assumptions. Nothing about blah blah on my end, but lots of pulling things out of your nose with barbed wire.
So wormholes, eh? That's fantastic actually. So you are in EXTRA hostile space. Because you cannot do recon in local hence the requirement for people checking on the system entrances. If not, your fleet gets jumped and your your ships wrecked before you can blink when you fit for pure yield. So what do you do when your recon signals incoming? Pack your things and run for POS? So what's the difference in having your booster alt in POS or on grid if you just pack up? Oh I know... you don't know. Because this new industrial command ship in the coming devblog might just be right up your alley and everything you complain about might be absolutely irrelevant. Patience.

Akoha Uisen wrote:
So, I ask you again, why do you insist on making this harder with no gain to an industrial pilot?
Your post was nice, please take this with face value. I don't care if the top half was written for entertainment purposes only, but it was a nice post. Sir, do me the same favour as anyone else who insists to be an Industrialist of calibre;
Wait for the mining dev blog before you make a judgement call first.
Kaile Nefertiti
Extra Galactic Expeditions
#773 - 2016-08-31 04:28:16 UTC
Do we know if the new mining BC booster will be able to mine also? I really hope so cuz sticking a character that usually mines into a boosting ship just to sit there and give boosts is very boring gameplay.

The combat boosters get guns also to help wth dps or other stuff, please give the mining booster the ability to mine also!
Gerark
#774 - 2016-08-31 04:37:10 UTC
My intention is not to rant, while I don't like the specific changes, I do agree that off-grid boosting is silly. My boosting alt must have orbited stations millions of times in her life.

Full disclosure, I am a Casual High Sec Carebear (Yes, more casual than most), almost 11 years old, coming up on 200M SP, this is my point of view for my play style. Also excuse my english, it isn't what it used to be.

My issue is mainly with the removal of all passive bonuses.

I may have activated a Link maybe once in all my time playing EVE with my boosting alt. Mostly I just made a fleet for the passive bonuses. This character is trained to the classic L5/4/4/4/4 + Mining 5/4, I never got Mining Director 5 because I never got the Mining Mindlink. My point is, I trained them for a passive bonus, if you wanted to be the best miner, you got the mining Leadership skills. You can claim that I trained them for the wrong reason, but I would disagree, the skills had a purpose that fit my play style, so I chose to train them. With the changes I doubt I'll ever use them again since I'm not gonna be flying an Orca any time soon.
I don't want a skill refund, it's only 1.6M SP, while they would be nice, I don't actually need them, since I don't see Capitals in my future and have very few skills I want that badly, heck, I have 1.1M SP in my pool right now.

On the matter of skill refunds, I only feel Wing/Fleet Command deviate far enough from current function to deserve consideration for refunds if they are no longer needed for making large fleets. If fleets are allowed to form to max size with no skills then these two skills should be removed and refunded and the Burst range skills should be new skills that you get the skill books free and refunded SP so you can train if you want them, invest in other areas if you don't.

tl,dr: Passive bonuses remaining would be nice. Refund WC/FC if no longer needed for forming large fleets.
JoAnnaBeth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#775 - 2016-08-31 05:01:03 UTC
Another thing really not needed but used to correct your gaming style,which is not approved by CCP,cause they didnt make a mining game,they made it to blow up ships,no one really cares where the ships are 'grown' at.....is it time for Tom to be avaiable for purchase,cause whats 2 hours......at this point , really i loved playing EVE, i gave ten years just to get back what. ok yes getting a venture was the best thing since sliced bread... i can give you a few more months just in case you got a bright idea,however ,given your track record (CCP) thats doubtful ,everyone wants you to actually create something useful,you have made updates and that is good to most players.
Personally,i would take these last four months of the year and strip everything ,take local away and start brand new and see what they gripe about.your bringing in all this stuff and really like for me ,it all is useless,its like handing ppl broken crutches and telling them to play football and if your by yourself,what are boosts for again....i dont play this game to make friends ,the ones i do have came about the hard and enjoyable way of getting blown up and laughing about it in local.when i started playing the thought of an alt was something those 'fancy' people did so they could sit in station and talk smack all day in local.I took what i could with a grain of salt and drove on,I learned to mine,to build a ship,to shoot legal bad guys for fun as mining got stale on the second rotation,mission for standings so i can get me a JumpClone in high sec.high sec wars were really high lite of high sec.Low sec has always had issues and null sec is where to go to get lost .The game is not the same as it was,improvements are to be expected ,All this new "Content" will do what ? Well ,its not been for the new player experience,which really ends hours later maybe when you found out your suppose to be training a skill all the time but shooting those newbi npc rats was suppose to be doing you some good but really you should have doing those tutorial things which are showing you how to play the game.you start picking up that there people everywhere so lets goooo,umm yeah you decide to look at the stargate a bit,soak up its awesomeness,now you thought you were getting content looking at that gate,no,larry curly and moe,pull up to you lock you up,and your screen goes white and there your corpse is in space with a message saying your got a kill right you can "Act" on and here is 5,000 isk .Time to undock and find another ship. maybe we will try a few more of those tutorials .Rinse repeat,this process should,could,would lead to these great and beautiful things you speak of, other than giving new players somewhat better starting skills than what a number of us have had , these things your bringing to table seem to not let you do as much as a 'group' so what is the drive to get these things , the venture we use to solo mine wouldnt have boosts, are you like reducing range of modules so instead of a normal 10km (roughly) it would be reduced to 5km unless you was in a fleet? these new stuff your bringing ,sorry, revamping, or is it nerfing, really isnt practical to use,to that solo player your just jacking up everyone else's game,making them sweeter for the kill. As for fleets,removing the heirarchy's importance just doesnt seem logical,you want people to understand the importance of a fleet,of a squad commander,and etc to include that of a booster almost sounds like knowing what your fleets about, instead your giving them a Lets be Ignorant Card to understanding the game .Your talking in a good direction just walking the other way. Command bursts,as if you havent used Command enough, uses a type of ammo,script,or light switch or button on our HUD to provide boosts we click this and a sphere of influence provides this boost for a limited time,i think thats the general idea, based around the ship boosting,cause we really want to get out of our ship to switch to a mining ship to be active for the duration of the boosts.I mean why do this ,you want to steal our ships?or you going to add pod locks as well,lol,ok i dont have the common sense to understand that as a good idea. You give us the rope we will hang ourselves right. I thought the introduction of this new stuff would bring tactices into play ,some claimed it did but i got confused ,dragging people off groups to expose them isnt even possible in high sec ,wait for the "bump" unless the person is going after you and you scram and web them down ,now low sec and null different story,kidnap ,scram,and web them down,general tactics wont change,we all can now look at the pretty rays beaming from the ship and figure something other than "Target is in a Ship,Type,looks like the rainbow is loving on him" Im glad you got all these high def graphics,this was as bad as the icon change up recently.The sounds alone are enough to put someone to sleep really,the beat or pitch or something just makes me yawn.....reminds me of the adults in the peanut cartoons. Devs,Why not just announce you want everybody in an orca or this rouqal thingie that is suppose to be helpful and mining in belts cause "you" dont have enough content. dont be changing something because you cant find something to blow up or cant find someone to blow up because now we have to mine MORE to meet quotas for ships ,etc. Fix stuff,stop breaking it,stop trading stuff in for more Broke stuff.If your going to do stuff like this,just clean slate everyone to 0 sp at least we wont worry of wasting skills of this stuff .
Rutane
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#776 - 2016-08-31 05:01:04 UTC
Gerark wrote:
..., it's only 1.6M SP, while they would be nice, I don't actually need them, since I don't see Capitals in my future and have very few skills I want that badly, heck, I have 1.1M SP in my pool right now.

tl,dr: Passive bonuses remaining would be nice. Refund WC/FC if no longer needed for forming large fleets.


Had the same sort of set up formy alt, have bought already 3 skill extractors, will use 2 and sell one filled, skill pooints will go towards drug use skills - there I can decide when where and how to use boosts myself with a decent time frame Lol aye!!!
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#777 - 2016-08-31 05:24:33 UTC
Bo Goodwin wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Bo Goodwin wrote:
[
To that other comment about asteroids...I've played other aspects of the game, PvP, FW, PvE, WHs, etc.. but mining asteroids is the single most enjoyable thing...to me. How truly blessed am I?


Very, I couldn't do it. Different strokes. Back to the matter at hand - your thoughts are 1-2 AU boosts for industrial purposes?



I would have to look at the positions of all the asteroid belts in all systems. But if the range was close to 2AU, how many belts would that cover in your average system?

IIRC In most cases it would cover all Belts around a single Planet, but not much more than that.
Rutane
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#778 - 2016-08-31 05:28:40 UTC
Gulmuk wrote:
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...


I agree you nailed it, why massing with mining boosts just the combat boosts would have been fine to wipe out that passives since mining linkes always had a sepcial use on special ships no issue to mix all up to a green slime.

Actually personally I feel Orcas will be the big massive trouble . with Rorquals you stil have option, eg. it has a Jump drive.
JoAnnaBeth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#779 - 2016-08-31 05:34:30 UTC
GeeBee wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
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.


ECM is a lot of skillpoints but isn't broken per say, cloaking is 1 skill and its the afk cloaking that makes it silly, T2 weapons have a purpose of progression and shooting at each other and almost everyone will train them eventually.

Boosting skills are trained by few characters for a specialty purpose that is overly important. As a fleet member I don't want my ship to be dependent on another characters affecting my ships stats. As a pilot being a booster is more of a chore than gameplay. The only logical reason to keeping boosts is so you can keep using them to dunk newbies in highsec / lowsec that don't even knows what boosts are. In large nullsec fights its pretty much a mandate. Most of anyone that knows anything is over boosts, the best solution is to remove them.

The prime driver for keeping boosts is injector bait, something that *needs to be done on an alt account that you need to be able to compete* I'm sure there is a definite revenue factor for that, to deny that is silly.

Skill injectors as a whole in the short term have given CCP some major revenue but in the long run it will reduce the number of players willing to play the game because it makes the game even more pay to win, on a small scale / multiboxing boosts are pay to win. CCP is addressing the power creep of skillpoints in ways to monetize them rather than properly addressing them. there's a year's worth of skill training for *core skills* that everyone ends up training just to fly a subcap and be competitive. in the age of free to play games this marketing scheme is so non-competitive we should expect our playerbase to dwindle because nobody wants to drop that much cash or time in order to catch up.


plenty of good points,its good to see people voicing their opinions. how is cloaking broken....SImple purpose to avoid detection, you cant see them? Clearly this skill is one that works.,are they in your system and you cant what....see them? Cloaking isnt broken you just dont like how it was used against you. whats the use of stealth bombers without cloak? just another special ship.so lets take away cloak,now you made more ships become useless. oh wait there is another skill your making useless. Look it was bad when people were griping about interceptors using entosis link,people just got tired of messages saying they might want to check out their systems,which is just lazy but CCP listened (well they got tired of getting these notifications for themselves),looked at what was happening and said well that size ship is just too much of a threat to have a entosis ,since they are fast and small,and even those with that homefield server tick had a time just trying to kill one and since they were having a time just getting a lock ,it was something that had to be fixed...that also implies there was a state to where it was Fixed.can we get there first without breaking anything else...Beegee i think your on track about the skill injectors,i think of it as just a waste when there really so much more to be done with Eve.
Deep Space Cowboy
Crisis Gate
#780 - 2016-08-31 05:45:22 UTC
To all the non miners that keep arguging that sieging a rorqual in a belt will be fine this: https://zkillboard.com/character/92270154/ is what happens currently to pilots who choose to siege their rorqual in a belt while they mine. This pilot has lost FOURTEEN rorquals in the past 10 months (and has been inactive for 2) since he was able to fly them.

https://zkillboard.com/kill/54477377/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/53986096/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/53709338/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/53559334/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/52598055/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/52124294/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/51171154/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/49756154/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/50570650/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/50524666/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/49897155/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/49756154/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/49505233/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/49417270/


This is what CCP is asking miners to do with these changes. There's no risk vs reward only suicide.