These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1061 - 2016-09-06 16:53:17 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great



i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts



if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#1062 - 2016-09-06 17:59:58 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
With apologies to CASMA (more about that below) my initial reaction to these changes is very positive. Last night a Fed Navy Comet came into my system so I undocked a Comet of my own while looking forward to some 1v1 action. As I was calculating a warp-in however a Tengu entered system. I sighed and docked up, not wanting to fight against a boosted opponent. Turns out the Tengu was just a coincidental neutral but by then it was too late. With on-grid command burts, at least I would have known exactly when or when not the opponent was receiving boosts. It wouldn't preclude the opponent's booster warping in after getting a scram and deploying the Command Burst, but that's at least a little bit more tolerable.

As a close-range brawler I also like the nerf this deals to bs kiting comps. The booster would need to be at least as fast as the kiting ships in order to continue to provide boosts, and it would also require the kiting ships to stick together to remain in range of the effect.

Additionally, as somebody who trained some leadership skills mostly to pass boosts other fleetmates were providing, I suppose I could extract those skills and sell the Injectors for ISK - but I would much prefer to reallocate those SP elsewhere in my character, without having to deal with the Injectors providing much less than 500k SP for my character. CCP, please consider a skill refund with the deployment of these changes.

Finally, for CASMA - I do not know how you operate as despite being in CCG I am only peripherally aware of you guys. But CCG does make use of Orca and Rorqual boosts a lot in our nullsec home, so these changes will effect us as well. I have no idea what the miners in CCG will do about the mining boosts changes, but you guys are totally welcome to come down and join us where at least you'll have some sort of PvP backup for protection. (But AFK mining, of course, is not really an option and we cannot help with that.) The ice and roids are quite valuable and should be more than enough compensation for the inevitable ship losses. Getting on some nice killmails in the meantime is another perk of nullsec mining.

(Pardon if a dupe - got a "we were ganked" message first posting.)

So no change here .....
When the grid boosts are implemented when a Navy Comet and a Tengu fly in - you will still choose not to fight them
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1063 - 2016-09-06 18:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great



i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts



if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong


... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1064 - 2016-09-06 18:24:05 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great



i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts



if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong


... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them


you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1065 - 2016-09-06 18:28:13 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
if ccp reduced link strength to a sensible level, they would be optional and everything would be great



i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts



if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong


... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them


you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it

see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.

only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)

Apollo Outamon
Xenomine Industries
Evictus.
#1066 - 2016-09-06 18:49:30 UTC
I do not see where these changes are going to be helpful to industrialists in the long run. Yes the boosts will be better and the booster toon can now mine directly as well but, most booster toons are alts of miners anyway for the sole purpose of boosting the squad or fleet.

CCP stated that they listened to us players about wanting on grid boosting.... I do not know a single industrialist who would want such a thing. Putting a 2+ billion isk ship where it can be killed along with every miner that now has to mine next to it at risk of being 1 big bait ball. Not to mention that if a miner needs a specific type of ore for building ships that players use for ratting, defence of an area or PVP and there are none in the current belt they have to wait until the fleet moves to another belt to get it.
The current mining boosting system works very well and should not be changed simply because PVPers want to be able to kill the mining booster ships and/or hot drop a group of miners all at once for the added killboard padding.

CCP says they are giving the boosting ships an increase in defence and the Rorqual a superweopon to counteract hot drops and roaming fleets coming to kill it. This will allow enough time for a friendly fleet to come to the rescue....PVP time again. Miners will most often still lose this one. the superweopon for protection last only so long and then if help isn't there or available.. POOF!

Most miners are vulnerable enough as it is and get killed often enough as it is. Why make them more of a target? Does CCP not realize that without the miners and builders the PVP part would suffer greatly? That most miners will not risk the boosting ships of any price tag at this point. The price of ore and minerals will sky rocket followed by the price of ships, modules and every other item in game? Players will stop playing the game. Miners will no longer mine. and PVPers who are the driving force behind these changes (i have no doubt) will be the ones to suffer the most in the end.
How long until a 45 mil isk PVP ship becomes 145 mil isk? Or more?

Now let's get to the new boosting ship, the Porpoise. A ship that is cheap and able to provide mining boosts and that is quick enough to get out of harms way is an great idea. Right? Let's look at this. Ok so miners are not going to risk the big isk ships for boosting on grid we know this so let's make a ship that can do it and that is cheap and able to get out much quicker. At a far less boosting amount.
Now this is like saying we know this change is going to upset just about every industrialist in the game because we know none of them wants these changes we are forcing on them so lets try to apease them some what with this alternative ship for boosting. Because CCP knows that no mining equals no pvp which equals no $$ for them.

I appologize for the length of this post but, as someone who mines, pvps, builds and explores in this game, i can not sit here and think gee this is a great idea when it is nothing but another way for pvp to make CCP $$.

As it stands it looks like when the miners stop mining or the influx of ore drops drastically will CCP stop and go "oops, we messed that one up" and fix it back to how it is now. PVP will suffer from lack of ore to make the ships that they use.

Think about the domino effect here people. Everything in this game is tied to everything else in one way or another. If miners suffer so does PVP. If enough miners quit, stop mining or aren't able to mine enough ore any longer due to lack of boosts you will see the effects rather quickly.

Just a thought.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1067 - 2016-09-06 18:56:01 UTC
Apollo Outamon wrote:
the current boosting system has 0 risk and loads of reward. this is a good thing




your the reason indi pilots get a bad reputation
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1068 - 2016-09-06 20:39:20 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.

only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)



it's awkward because this post is the opposite of the truth, but we're off-topic so I shouldn't be responding
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1069 - 2016-09-06 21:56:56 UTC
X Mayce wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
X Mayce wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
by more active i think they mean removing that rorqual sitting in the pos all day while its pilot is at work....


the new rorq only mining drones are not enough for you?


I just dont get their idea of "active", the rorqual has to be in the belt, I am completly fine with that, but this be afk in the belt instead of the pos, what's this game design? xD



in belt mining with drones is just as active as miners mining with lasers and much more active than not being in the same zip code as your PC


i do like how you are one of the few who not only realizes they will still be used but even that ppl will still afk with them though.



ye you are right, i guess i would just love to see the rorqual doing something different than the boosting.

well mining is completly designed to be afk while doing it, except the hulks, where you shuffle ore around.

To me the rorqual should be something like a dread, you bring it to maybe break big ore or to mine more than normal stuff (in relation to a dread who is a classcannon in regards of damage)

but the current state, it's this stupid thing sitting there, hoping for times where it can finally shine.

-> you need the rorqual for efficiency but again not for fun :/



I am all for the coming changes, I do have my reservations about the Rorq being put in the belt and I guess I would just like to see it having a reasonable chance of escape/defending itself. Sadly this seems to be another round of CCP pandering to the people who cry about not having enough easy high ISK killmails.

I guess more than anything I would like to see is the Rorqual being able to move while boosting. Get rid of this stupid siege mechanic for the industrial core. From what i can gather from the discussions I've read the mining yield will be more, yes, but as with the new carrier system they have increased the level of micromanaging necessary to significantly gimp productivity. The skiff, being my preferred mining vessel will now have two mining lasers and will fill its hold before it can jetcan, meaning now all the barges for long term mining ops will need to anchor a can or constantly warp out and back. The micromanaging necessary for a couple miners will not be so much but for those alliance supporting type entities who take out 10-20 alt fleets, it will become next to impossible.

So it seems to me that for all intents and purposes, the yield will remain roughly the same overall, only now you are risking a 2 billion isk ship, in the belt. So while at face value it may seem the risk vs. reward system is being implemented by saying we will be getting a huge boost to mining amount, but it will be offset by the added time in managing storage and transport. So for this to not be heavily biased in favor of miner ganks, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of egress or a really big boost to yield. time will tell
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1070 - 2016-09-06 22:01:24 UTC
they did make it so you do not need to siege the rorq and still get a significant boost over the orca but if you want to take on the extra risk you can siege and get even more.


-.- i have no sympathy if you alt management got harder. if thats what this change has done good one CCP
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc
#1071 - 2016-09-06 22:33:13 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


i don't think you understand eve mentality where every % counts



if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong


... that's exactly what it will be after the change because it will be harder to have an alt do it hell they are optional now we almost never use them (we poor basters cant plex no alt) and tbh they don't give that much of an advantage. They are just used so much now because there is no reason not to use them


you will be fielding a ship that can potentially get killed, which is a huge step up. but it'll still the same kind of suboptimal gameplay as logistics, where you basically need to bring it all the time, and all fights will revolve around it

see thats another misconception you don't NEED logistics there are plenty of ways to make your enemies choice to invest pilots into logi hurt them.

only time you need logistics is in large fights but you can't balance large fights w/o breaking small ones (one reason i'm glad ccp put small-mid gang game play above large)

This is the perfect example of the myopic self centered blindness people can and often do develop when they think their game style is the only or best game style to play.

8 or 10 man fleets running Incursions certainly NEED logistics. But when all you think about is pvp you can become blind to the day to day reality other players face. Sometimes what you don't consider breaks the game for others. No logistics would certainly break the game for people flying Incursions.

Now go ahead and say you think Incursions are bad and you want them to go away. (aka you don't run incusions so you don't care about breaking it for those who do)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1072 - 2016-09-06 23:15:33 UTC
... he said need it at all times. If anyone was blind to other Play styles it was him.


And I do run incursions i make most my isk that way and yes they are bad they are a risk free Isk faucet. The HS rewards should be cut in half
Rick Wyatt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1073 - 2016-09-07 13:52:44 UTC
Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this.
Rin Aiko
CVT IND
#1074 - 2016-09-07 15:39:53 UTC
Rick Wyatt wrote:
Everyone should be figuring out a way to congratulate CCP. In the vastness of all this open space they have managed to find a way to shove everyone into office cubicles limited by the range of boosters. They have successfully destroyed a hierarchical system in which far less experienced players can now have the same effect as someone who has been playing since the game started. Any advantage you had by being here a long time is pretty much dissipated in a big battle. They have taken something already very complicated and turned it into a big spreadsheet. If you're outside of the lines of the spreadsheet or if you have to go back to get another spreadsheet ship you are open for annihilation because you're not blanketed by the spreadsheet. If you are not in the right position you will not get the protection of the spreadsheet. Lastly they have created something so incomprehensibly complicated that I no longer even feel I can participate in combat and I've pretty much given up the idea of even trying. Mining will no longer be worth it to smaller groups who can't cover against even a 10 ship fleet or will become not worth it because people are going to be unwilling to risk losing major ships that boost. or you don't even have enough ships that boost because the 2 guys that boost are in a different time zone. On top of all of this they're going to throw in a herd of people even more newbie than I am to gaming. I pretty much figure that people are going to be leaving in droves and I agree with the person that said CCP is forcing people into a style of combat that one or two people like. I'm not looking forward to any of this.



I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them.
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1075 - 2016-09-07 21:02:27 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:

if they were optional, you'd be thinking about what ship to put that % of pilots in instead, and if you have enough people in fleet for links to be a worthwhile investment of people. after these changes it always will be because they're still broken strong


I know, right? If only there were ships that can fit links AND guns at the same time. Forcing those 4link t3's on grid with no tank or guns is totally a bad idea Roll
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1076 - 2016-09-08 02:02:03 UTC
Rin Aiko wrote:
I wish boosts were removed altogether. Sad that folks feel that they can't participate in gameplay without them.


In wormhole warfare do to limited mass you can take through wormholes boosts are often the deciding factor when going balls deep into a fleet you know can bring reinforcements
GROUND XERO
Kill at Will
Socket Closed.
#1077 - 2016-09-08 06:56:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
GROUND XERO wrote:


4-5 no the fleet positioning/darting on and of grid/need for multiple boosters would not have been there in nearly the same way. if they just forced them on grid you could do what boosters do now when forced on grid. sit there look pretty make sure not to get out of RR range


If you are forced onto the grid it will need more than look pretty .... and even more if there are range limits ... the only thing more is to reload! You allready need 1x fleet booster + 1 for each wing so at leat 6 for a full fleet so i still donĀ“t see the increase of fun .... but i might be blind in this case!



Are you really this angry that fleet boosting is now a role that will require some attention?[/quote]

NOPE! .... but as i told several times before i smell another door that pushes the super blobb..... and harms the small to med scale fun ... !
I really like the fact that boosters are forced onto the grid and have a limited range! But present game mechanics like tidi will cause huge problems for boosters ( remind a cycling "gun-thinngy" which has to reload.... ) ... you might say ok every other Pilot has same issues at the same time but this is not true! If Titans , who allready have the most effective tidi weapon will get an extra effect for what ever it will buff the super blob even more ... or do i get it wrong?

And again cycling a single module is not really any kind of extra fun nor need of super soft skills to handle on field.... so i really see no imrpovement that seems better than just remove all kind of boosters on an active base ( maybe just give command ships of any kind a fixed bonus they are giving out, if used in the role of their fleet ....and if they are on field/ grid and in range .... so you can use these ships and not need to gimp em :-))

NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!

Diana Lillywhite
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1078 - 2016-09-08 09:38:22 UTC
My calc

Rorqual Max Range Bonus:
Ship Bonus: 50% + Mining Director 50% + Leadership 50% + Wing Command 25% + Fleet Command 20% + T2 Indust Core 200% = 395%

Max Range: 15km + 15km * 395% = 5940km
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1079 - 2016-09-08 09:45:28 UTC
15 x 4 = 6000 ?
Sentenced 1989
#1080 - 2016-09-08 10:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentenced 1989
Diana Lillywhite wrote:
My calc

Rorqual Max Range Bonus:
Ship Bonus: 50% + Mining Director 50% + Leadership 50% + Wing Command 25% + Fleet Command 20% + T2 Indust Core 200% = 395%

Max Range: 15km + 15km * 395% = 5940km



you mean 15km + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 50% of 15km (7.5km) + 25% of 15km (3.75km) + 200% of 15km (30km) = 71,25 km

also, a note: ore you mine yourself is not free.