These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#821 - 2016-08-31 15:02:17 UTC
Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well.
Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.

Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.

This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ...
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#822 - 2016-08-31 15:02:43 UTC
Warlord Balrog wrote:


Because if we can't hide our Nyx inside a POS shield why should a Rorqual be able to?


And I'm not defending the 'bug' that permits industrials from providing boosts in a POS, IMHO this has been a longtime issue that could be resolved without going to an active boost state with ammo costs (OK CCP comment on the cap issues cause if you are using ammo then cap costs disappear). I'm just commenting that the changes have a relatively large impact upon miners, and it will impact hi sec miners in a negative way that makes gameplay more costly, less beneficial, and more clicky in return for nothing. And to add insult to injury, CCP has no communicated plan to ameliorate this impact by returning SP or ISK or gametime.
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#823 - 2016-08-31 15:07:26 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Now, you can use / fly the Orca into the belt, boost everybody and fly back, or even better use the Orca as hauler as well.
Not beeing forced to stay, where you are, cause Mindlinks would turn of, if you are start warping.

Your Command Ship or your T3 can fly arround, help the miners ratting, light a cyno, what ever you want - cause you are not forced to live on your safespot / close to POS / close to Citadel anymore.

This reminds me of the Battle-Orders-Barbarians in Diablo 2 ...


Why make Big Bertha exercise? She'll collapse if she moves too far or fast, that's more of a job for Transport/Freighters.
Always Shi
t Posting
#824 - 2016-08-31 15:09:35 UTC
Is anyone able to activate an Improved Forum Posting command burst in this thread?
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#825 - 2016-08-31 15:18:10 UTC
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

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


If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet!
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#826 - 2016-08-31 15:30:48 UTC
Rowells wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

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


There was never a "yield" boost. There was a cycle time boost, a cap cost boost, and a range boost.

The cycle time and capacitor cost reduction were rolled into one boost, and the crystal volatility one is new.




Yep. Completely new bonus. A creative one, no doubt, but I still believe that by itself it doesn't really do nearly as much as the other two. I worry that it will become one of those boosts that doesn't really get used because its impact is so small.


There is plenty of stuff on the market that can be defined by 'waste'. I guess CCP figured that a "200% bonus to mining crystal bonus would be too powerful, I sort of agree with that assessment, however, I do completely agree there is no point in having crystals become less volatile via link. Either:
A) Remove their damage mechanic all together (Let's face it, most charges don't get damaged); or
B) Directly link their mining bonus % to the crystal's EHP (NO! No repair paste mumbo-jumbo here!) from 100% at 0% damage to say 5% just before it explodes.
Thus making the third M.F. charge worth more than a placeholder for something more..... creative in the future.

One of the hillarious things is most people don't realize you can get your moneys worth out of the crystals if they're "too expensive" for you by unloading them at 95-98% and recycling them at base for nocxium Cool
Lugh Crow-Slave
#827 - 2016-08-31 15:44:02 UTC
Warlord Balrog wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?

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


If you read closely, two mining boosts had their powers combined to form captain planet!


no the yield boost has been removed

the cycle time and cap have been combined

the yield boost was passive given by skill and implant


for the other links the passive skill became a script for the module shield hp armor hp ect mining had the yield one removed and replaced with the crystal bonus


i don't care either way just clarifying
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#828 - 2016-08-31 15:55:11 UTC
Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy

Grimulfr Meinfertr
CAS Traitors
CAStabouts
#829 - 2016-08-31 15:58:15 UTC
This essentially kills the free fleet boost for mining in high sec. I guess thanks for making bumping a bit less effective.... that was minor. Making mining fleet boosts only work in a small area will kill the free mining fleet. This is a massive nerf for anybody who mines with fewer than five accounts and a very major boost to the "locust fleet" where a single person manages multiple (over five) clients to vacuum up ores and ice. I guess we can easily see where CCP wants mining to go. They want miners with ten accounts buying plex with isk from players who only have one or two accounts, who sell plex for isk because it's not economically viable to mine for isk as a newer player. BUY PLEX!

Other posters: The yield boost was not a link. The yield boost was from mining foreman.
Tavari Minrathos
PC Load Letter
#830 - 2016-08-31 16:10:22 UTC
Questions:

1: Will the new mining battle cruiser use an existing skill or new one?

2: Are you considering a 3rd rig slot as part of the command ship rebalance?

3: I know its coming in the 3rd blog, but can you give an idea of how extensive the changes to combat boosting ships (command ships in particular) are going to be? Are we talking minor grid/CPU adjustments, major overhauls, or just rebalancing within the ship class?

4: Has the design team planned for players twisting links. By twisting, I mean giving 2 buffs from 1 module by changing ammo types every cycle after max duration skills? Is this the designed intent for high skill play or do you see boosting modules more as utility high slot.

5: Will there be options for players to turn the graphics off/down client side to prevent mass d/c or lag issues with undock/jumping system and massive number of players spamming these visual effects? (Fleet of 70-100 players all spamming links on the Jita undock for example)

6: Roughly in which blog will we hear more about the ammo for boosts? Or will that info only be available on the test server?

Thanks for the blog and info, changes look potentially very impactful.
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#831 - 2016-08-31 16:19:00 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Team Five 0 wrote:
However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected.

The only thing that gives me pause is the stacking penalty.

Example: Seems odd that it may benefit a mining ship to NOT fit a MLU.


Off the top of my head, I can think of a very good reason for opening a low slot up, TANK! (AKA Anti-gank AKA lamer-be-gone)
If having an on-grid booster frees up two more low slots, you best believe those Skiff pilots will be very tankful.

On a side note, it'll be nice not having to be one of the very few boosters who fit more than one type of boost category, IE: Shield Harmonizer instead of MF cap reduction link. Face it, barges/exhumers don't need it anyway. :)

Lastly, I don't think you'll be seeing many Orcas, and unless they're very secure and/or rich, Rorq pilots boosting on field very often after the change. Hell, I bet skill injector prices will burst because of the leadership changes, many Orca pilots will repurpose or quit (probably ragequit after spending a few billion on skills and the now useless MF implant).

Not that anyone cares, but I'll be extracting all leadership skills and hold a candlelight vigil for anything relying on it (*cough* Fighters *cough*). Oh, and probably Cybernetics 5, as there'll be no implants requiring it of use anymoreOops
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#832 - 2016-08-31 16:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zorn Cosby
Yeah, I agree with you on Cybernetics V now basically being worthless and the big increase in extractors, this is a strong money grab from an entire class of players.

This could have been done so much more thoughtfully.

Just take current tanking as examples. Passive protective modules yield lower results for less fiddling. Active protective modules often yield better results but cost more in other areas (fit, skills, ISK or other issues). Now apply that thought process to fleet boosters. If you want a passive boost with longer range, then you can get it but with less effect. If you want an active, more effective boost with shorter range, you could get that too, but with harder fitting or other costs. This current proposal is just a ram the sucker down the throat of everyone as a cookie cutter and pray you don't screw too many of the player base.

The whole sit in a POS with your booster, was always BS, so doing away with that is OK as far as I am concerned.

But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away.

Now watch CCP just ignore input/comments/etc and just ram this sucker
Lugh Crow-Slave
#833 - 2016-08-31 16:56:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Zorn Cosby wrote:
.

But eliminating passive boosts entirely and making them all highly localized and cost money and,and,and is just not very thoughtful or consistent or proactive. And for an entire group (miners) it adds nothing to gameplay at all, just takes away.

Now watch CCP just ignore input/comments/etc and just ram this sucker


how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay

it may take away profits but that is not the same


and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?

i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#834 - 2016-08-31 17:13:36 UTC
What are the possibilities of making OGB work like RR, in that, the further from the booster you are, the less effective his boosts are? This will not have such a negative inpact on the change amoungst veterans AND as an added bonus will keep Rorqual and capital boosting pilots in the game a little longer because they can sit further out and at least have a chance at redemption after after it hits the fan. On a side note, it adds more tactical gameplay to develop. Should I bump that booster this way or that is only one aspect of the grid. Instead it becomes, will booshing or bumping him be worth my while? FCs will have more work, the bursting ships will require some more coordination, and the leadership skills can be put to use rather than cannon fodder in our resumes. Last but not least, Orca and Rorq pilots will not hold their mining frigates up (it will be up to a transport to keep up instead) :)

-2 cents
Decaneos
Casalt Corp
CAStabouts
#835 - 2016-08-31 17:22:48 UTC
Raido Kudonen wrote:


Only if you forgot to be 2-3 jumps in. It might be 15 seconds between when ceptors spike a system and shotgun anoms and when they land on you, if it's a small system. But it takes around 30 seconds to warp gate to gate in a typical nullsec system, so if you are watching the entrance to your bearing constellation and you're 2-3 jumps in you have at least 75-90 seconds to work with.

In short, don't be afk and bear while aligned.


So what you going to be doing while the core is active? cause last time i looked that's 300 seconds of not going anywhere.
Brodit
Dark Harlequin
Illusion of Solitude
#836 - 2016-08-31 18:02:35 UTC
So if I read this right, farewell to passive boosts.

Okay now answer why?

Poor gameplay? Because leadership can be remotely applied. Leadership is remotely applied all the time in real life. Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea? Of course not. Furthermore I don't remember Her Maj head of the armed forces of Britain popping across to Helmand to give on grid pep talk. Unlikely any high level command ever see combat zones.

Lack of counter? Sort the mining boosts then, no combat boosts can be applied from a pos/cit.

If CCP don't like leadership skills - remove them, refund the sps, move on.

Better yet, suck it up. Modify the passive skill boosts and introduce the on grid leadership skills as a completely different set of skills within leadership skill tree. You could then have fleets with passive AND active leadership skills plus a whole host of new skills to be trained within that skill group.

When CCP said they were going to improve leadership and make it meaningful I was expecting more, not less gameplay.

I suppose any hope for a command Fortizar is shot to hull now as well. Twisted

Carry on, your going to anyway.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#837 - 2016-08-31 18:34:36 UTC
Brodit wrote:
Does that make leadership in real life a bad idea?


No, followers make leadership in real life a bad idea. Blink
Pretagos Omilas
Made in Wormhole Space
#838 - 2016-08-31 18:52:58 UTC
This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback:

GsyBoy wrote:
Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#839 - 2016-08-31 19:02:00 UTC
Pretagos Omilas wrote:
This sounds like a good idea to structure feedback:

GsyBoy wrote:
Can we have two threads, one for mining and one for pvp implications, some only interested in one or another I feel, would make thread more readable also.




Lol you are asking CCP to split a thread like that????


they always do this kind of thing go back and look at the thread where they changed hull resists

it was swamped with ppl talking about freighters and almost nothing else could be talked about. If ccp didn't split that one no way they split this one
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#840 - 2016-08-31 19:19:09 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


how is putting another ship in belt that now needs a pilot (not someone with their pc on at work) taking away gameplay

it may take away profits but that is not the same


and even in combat why should you be able to provide passive boosts?

i cant give passive RR i cant do passive DPS i cant do passive e-war


Gotta admit you are looking a bit like a CCP tool...

Another ship was ALWAYS needed for boosts. It ALWAYS needed to be piloted. So unless you are talking about those who sit on a POS, nothing has changed in terms of ships or pilots. Now I agree that POS sitters were an issue, no risk whatsoever for pretty big gains. If this is a main beef, then this could and should have been resolved long ago via a simple patch. That is a mechanic that was always skewed by big gains for zero risk.

System-wide bonuses have been around a long, long time. Now there is a proposal to NOT do something that has pretty much always been a part of the game. People have built characters and corps around the passive effects that boosters have. The cheapening of these skills and their effects do alter the basic building blocks of the game and characters built over years in the game.

Let's see. I'm particularly interested in mining, not combat, and many of those with major concerns are surrounding the effects upon mining fleets (my example was hi sec). To have to run multiple Orcas in a single system to service a fleet, when the entire premise of that group or corp or whatever was built to just run a single Orca, is a massive issue. This is not a single small gang, or a single fleet, it is more than possible to have 60+km between ships in a single field and to have over 20 fields in a single system. + making me expend ammo to support a function that NEVER had that expense and was never planned to have that expense is yet another negative. Refilling ammo for a mining fleet, yet more clicking and expense for no gameplay advantages.

This is just more and more clicks and expense and removing SP and time spent by players for no gains. Make whatever you want of the combat issues, but this is a HUGE shift and it is a take away vs a bonus. Combat players can take different things away as I am not as sure of the impacts there (although the Strategic Cruisers seem yet again to gain more out of this than the already gimped Command Ships), miners are losing substantially in this proposal.