These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1381 - 2016-09-18 19:30:09 UTC
Hey Mike, good to see you posting. You're always weclome in my mining fleet ♥

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1382 - 2016-09-18 23:34:51 UTC
Lord Mudeki wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo.


No it wont, all its going to do is cause a lot of people to unsub accounts, rorquals will either possibly be sold en masse there by dropping the price and/or not used anymore, as far as pvp goes I think its a good idea but for mining I don't think its a good idea at all or even well thought out pertaining to mining and the rorqual, to me this change is totally for pvp and not for mining, they are just throwing it in there so pvpers can have more easy targets. To be honest as Ive seen several posts saying the same thing and I agree with it, if this is supposed to be a pvp pew pew game only then get rid of everything else, if I wasn't supposed to do only industry related stuff then get rid of it all and make it so where you can only pvp, then we wont have to worry about so called "carebears" because pretty much 50% or more people in the game would leave/unsub their accounts and you would be left with nothing but pvpers but then again at that point the game would probably not be profitable anymore.


"a lot of people" an arbitrary number that nor you or I will know. You think it's 50% of the people, I predict that less than 1% will unsub because of this change. First because they probably just won't care and secondly are not dumb enough to.

I doubt a significant amount of people will leave because of this and even if they did it's idiotic because they cannot see the overall good this can do to the economy.

So what if people sell their rorquals, less minerals, higher prices again.

If you're so short sighted that you think this is for "pvpers to have more targets" then I don't know what else to say for you.

@Malcanis

I did the math, it is indeed going to be a 133% yield increase, up from 97% we currently have.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1383 - 2016-09-19 00:28:08 UTC
Lord Mudeki wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo.


No it wont, all its going to do is cause a lot of people to unsub accounts, rorquals will either possibly be sold en masse there by dropping the price and/or not used anymore, as far as pvp goes I think its a good idea but for mining I don't think its a good idea at all or even well thought out pertaining to mining and the rorqual, to me this change is totally for pvp and not for mining, they are just throwing it in there so pvpers can have more easy targets. To be honest as Ive seen several posts saying the same thing and I agree with it, if this is supposed to be a pvp pew pew game only then get rid of everything else, if I wasn't supposed to do only industry related stuff then get rid of it all and make it so where you can only pvp, then we wont have to worry about so called "carebears" because pretty much 50% or more people in the game would leave/unsub their accounts and you would be left with nothing but pvpers but then again at that point the game would probably not be profitable anymore.


When Rorqual prices crash, I am buying three of them and multiboxing with the new mining fighters.

How is using a Rorqual in a belt - out of Industrial Core mode - any different than ratting in a Carrier?

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

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#1384 - 2016-09-19 00:44:34 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Also in b4 mining nerds crying about having to reload every 5 hours


Just have your hauler bring in from Citadel, the hauler dumps out anyway, so, why not?

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1385 - 2016-09-19 02:22:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaal Redrum
Im not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but im currently away from the game, and while the change to bringing boosting on-grid has been long due, i cant say im very happy with the current iteration.

I understand why CCP chose this direction, but dont they think this will simply reward N+1 gameplay i.e. always favor the larger player groups?

People who, for the majority, fly in small groups of 3-5, giving up a pilot to fly a 'command' ship is a major loss in 'gang power', as compared to an alliance 50-man Cerb blob, investing 1 of 50 pilots to the role?

Further, what happens to 'fast/kiting' gameplay? The gang is as good as the slowest ship, so unless CCP is about to give us high speed Command Ships (speedboost Sleipnirs!), how do they expect this gameplay to survive?

Command Destroyers now need to hug their gangs OR focus on attacking/defensive MJD tactics? Whats the point then?

I respect its not for everyone, but its the best way to stretch engagements and fight outnumbered, one of the core emergent gameplay for many subscribers, including me.

What happens to Marauders in PvP with on-grid boosting requirements?

What happens to Phantasm or Nightmare gangs?

Yes, all these changes apply to everyone equally but theyre clearly going to reward the F1 conga-line 50+ Cerb/Caracal/Insert-Ship fleets even more.

Small gang pilots like me will evolve and adapt, but these are very shortsighted changes. Very odd.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1386 - 2016-09-19 02:27:26 UTC
As for Anam 2 gangs needing to give up a pilot that is the same for any fleet rule. As for kiting have you seen how fast command desi move? Boost as a mechanic will always benefit n+1 and this change only hurts small groups who were relying on ogb where it is a huge advantage to the small groups who can't or don't ogb
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1387 - 2016-09-19 14:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Drigo Segvian
Kaal Redrum wrote:
Im not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but im currently away from the game, and while the change to bringing boosting on-grid has been long due, i cant say im very happy with the current iteration.

I understand why CCP chose this direction, but dont they think this will simply reward N+1 gameplay i.e. always favor the larger player groups?

People who, for the majority, fly in small groups of 3-5, giving up a pilot to fly a 'command' ship is a major loss in 'gang power', as compared to an alliance 50-man Cerb blob, investing 1 of 50 pilots to the role?

Further, what happens to 'fast/kiting' gameplay? The gang is as good as the slowest ship, so unless CCP is about to give us high speed Command Ships (speedboost Sleipnirs!), how do they expect this gameplay to survive?

Command Destroyers now need to hug their gangs OR focus on attacking/defensive MJD tactics? Whats the point then?

I respect its not for everyone, but its the best way to stretch engagements and fight outnumbered, one of the core emergent gameplay for many subscribers, including me.

What happens to Marauders in PvP with on-grid boosting requirements?

What happens to Phantasm or Nightmare gangs?

Yes, all these changes apply to everyone equally but theyre clearly going to reward the F1 conga-line 50+ Cerb/Caracal/Insert-Ship fleets even more.

Small gang pilots like me will evolve and adapt, but these are very shortsighted changes. Very odd.


You have to get good if you want to skirmish. Shocked

We almost always fly skirmish without links. It will be fun to see what happens now that we run into other skirmish gangs that heavily rely on links. Cool
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1388 - 2016-09-19 17:59:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Laurens Punani wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
it doesn't change the fact that this boost will be used by far fewer people due to the risk averse nature of miners

less ore overall, higher prices for the little guy who likely never had these boosts in the first place




Sov-null industiralists are ALL gonna use it. I am gonna produce a ton of minerals more than right now... i guess you are not an industrialist, right? :D

the smaall guys normally get free orca boost in highsec and rorqual boost in NRDS space... they just have to ask for it. Come november thats over, so i get 133% boost, mining fighters, safe space, mining anomalies and good customers
and they get a big punch in the face :D

i pointed out earlier what could be done to change that, but i guess you have not read that.

I like how ALTHOUG you were completely wrong, you still want to be right :D

Prices wont change much, the yield for small alliances or solo miners will drop Dramatically while Sov-Null yield goes up.

btw. its harder to kill Sov-Null miners, so you should be on my side... promoting a better fututre for smaller entities and getting more miners in belts without the support of a whole fleet --> nice killmails


"133% boost?"

Can you run the maths for me on that one?



1/(1-0,5714) =2,33 =233%

its a cycle time bonus. it the cycle time is reduced by 50% you can run the module twice in the same time. --> 100% boost
a 66% cycle time reduction leads to 200% boosts.
33% cycle time reduction leads to 50% boost
90% cycle time reduction leads to a 1000% boost
99% cycle time reduction leads to a 10 000% boost

pretty easy math. you learn that stuff in year 6
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1389 - 2016-09-19 18:05:58 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Lord Mudeki wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
It's a direct nerf yes but people can't see the big picture. Overall this will help the game imo.


No it wont, all its going to do is cause a lot of people to unsub accounts, rorquals will either possibly be sold en masse there by dropping the price and/or not used anymore, as far as pvp goes I think its a good idea but for mining I don't think its a good idea at all or even well thought out pertaining to mining and the rorqual, to me this change is totally for pvp and not for mining, they are just throwing it in there so pvpers can have more easy targets. To be honest as Ive seen several posts saying the same thing and I agree with it, if this is supposed to be a pvp pew pew game only then get rid of everything else, if I wasn't supposed to do only industry related stuff then get rid of it all and make it so where you can only pvp, then we wont have to worry about so called "carebears" because pretty much 50% or more people in the game would leave/unsub their accounts and you would be left with nothing but pvpers but then again at that point the game would probably not be profitable anymore.


"a lot of people" an arbitrary number that nor you or I will know. You think it's 50% of the people, I predict that less than 1% will unsub because of this change. First because they probably just won't care and secondly are not dumb enough to.

I doubt a significant amount of people will leave because of this and even if they did it's idiotic because they cannot see the overall good this can do to the economy.

So what if people sell their rorquals, less minerals, higher prices again.

If you're so short sighted that you think this is for "pvpers to have more targets" then I don't know what else to say for you.

@Malcanis

I did the math, it is indeed going to be a 133% yield increase, up from 97% we currently have.


the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...

my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...
GROUND XERO
Kill at Will
Socket Closed.
#1390 - 2016-09-20 06:08:32 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Donmadefy wrote:
How will these nerfs help solo or small gangs?

You say this is being implemented to help them compete. But I find it directly effecting single players with boosting alt. Why do you keep making the solo players obsolete. I do not wish to conform with your blob warfare crud.

If your nerf one of the only advantages a single player has to compete with the blob. Then whats the point of that.


because now not everyone will have a boosting alt hiding in system so it is no longer something everyone needs. it harder now for an alt to fill the role so you need to give it to a pilot that may be better used in dps/tackle/logi/e-war


not only that but you can now split fleets away from their booster


also if you have a boosting alt you're not solo



na we will see just the rise of falcon alts...

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

GROUND XERO
Kill at Will
Socket Closed.
#1391 - 2016-09-20 06:09:52 UTC
Donmadefy wrote:
I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it...



this is what we need to do!

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

Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#1392 - 2016-09-20 11:45:52 UTC
GROUND XERO wrote:
Donmadefy wrote:
I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it...



this is what we need to do!



+1
Laurens Punani
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1393 - 2016-09-20 13:13:30 UTC
Drigo Segvian wrote:
GROUND XERO wrote:
Donmadefy wrote:
I would be 100% happy if boost where removed from the game. We can not just nerf the small guys. Please thank about it...



this is what we need to do!



+1

+1 here :)
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1394 - 2016-09-20 20:51:41 UTC
Laurens Punani wrote:


the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...

my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...


"under the impression" being the key phrase here.

Any proof of this? Cause I seriously doubt that the small minority that do mine that much account for that much of the total amount.

Take a look at August's monthly economic report : http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70511/1/3_mining.value.by.region.png

There's no way that 1% of EVE's industrialists can continue to supply that many minerals. Not even close. I would say the total wealth mined by the 1% will be less than 10% of total minerals mined by the community.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1395 - 2016-09-20 21:24:44 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Laurens Punani wrote:


the thing is, most industrialists are under the impression that 90% or the minerals are mined by 1% of the undustrialists ;) I personally know people who mine more than 250b worth of ore per month... if 99% of the industrialists unsub their accounts, the prices will still not change that much...

my impression might be wrong tho. it might only be 80% of the minerals...


"under the impression" being the key phrase here.

Any proof of this? Cause I seriously doubt that the small minority that do mine that much account for that much of the total amount.

Take a look at August's monthly economic report : http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70511/1/3_mining.value.by.region.png

There's no way that 1% of EVE's industrialists can continue to supply that many minerals. Not even close. I would say the total wealth mined by the 1% will be less than 10% of total minerals mined by the community.





This is why I agree with a change for combat boosts, but not for mining.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1396 - 2016-09-20 21:28:56 UTC
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#1397 - 2016-09-20 23:14:40 UTC
lets shift from minor, oops miner, concerns lol...

CCP, will training requirements for CS be altered in this?

In the past for the its bs you need to train all the warfare base skills to fly CS change this threads I have been in the just train them and move on camp. reason being the base warfare skills gave, imo, almost as vital passive resists. Why am I training armour says the person interested in shield boosting.


I'd say 10 % armour ehp is actually useful to even shield tankers. I have had a rokh come home smoking from hull damage, but it came home alive. 10% more armour soaked up the damage that would have had rokh hull pop, I saw its value. 10% targeting range...not a passive bonus to kick out of bed either if no plans to run info links.

In this change the passives are going. And so does my only logical reason why a new booster would need to train all this really. Its now a salty bitter argument of because well we did it. Which for some bitters...we are pre CS change. We needed no heavy leadership trains in the past.

Old boy/girl wants shields and will only be shields they get nothing from armour trains after november. With the normal limit of 3 becoming 2 for CS, the +1 boost mod becoming a rig....chance of me in say nighthawk going lets run armour command burst no bonus from ship slim to none really. Its getting harder to run these mods, I won't be wasting space on unbonused mods.


Inb4 combat CS easier to train this way. This bridge crossed and burned when the CS change made. Intent by design was to focus on CS as a booster , that should be its consideration for training.

Boosting is changing, some warfares will make no sense since no passives....will this stuff be staying the tl;dr question I have.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#1398 - 2016-09-20 23:18:05 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?




Clearly, you don't mine.

Good day to you, sir.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#1399 - 2016-09-20 23:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Zan Shiro wrote:
lets shift from minor, oops miner, concerns lol...

CCP, will training requirements for CS be altered in this?

In the past for the its bs you need to train all the warfare base skills to fly CS change this threads I have been in the just train them and move on camp. reason being the base warfare skills gave, imo, almost as vital passive resists. Why am I training armour says the person interested in shield boosting.


I'd say 10 % armour ehp is actually useful to even shield tankers. I have had a rokh come home smoking from hull damage, but it came home alive. 10% more armour soaked up the damage that would have had rokh hull pop, I saw its value. 10% targeting range...not a passive bonus to kick out of bed either if no plans to run info links.

In this change the passives are going. And so does my only logical reason why a new booster would need to train all this really. Its now a salty bitter argument of because well we did it. Which for some bitters...we are pre CS change. We needed no heavy leadership trains in the past.

Old boy/girl wants shields and will only be shields they get nothing from armour trains after november. With the normal limit of 3 becoming 2 for CS, the +1 boost mod becoming a rig....chance of me in say nighthawk going lets run armour command burst no bonus from ship slim to none really. Its getting harder to run these mods, I won't be wasting space on unbonused mods.


Inb4 combat CS easier to train this way. This bridge crossed and burned when the CS change made. Intent by design was to focus on CS as a booster , that should be its consideration for training.

Boosting is changing, some warfares will make no sense since no passives....will this stuff be staying the tl;dr question I have.


except you are training for the command ship skill when you are training those skills and that skill is used for all races. Not only that but it is not a random selection of skills when they decide what skills go into a ship they find ones that make seance and that take long enough.


basically if they took out needing all the leardership skills they would replace them with something else that takes just as long considering the time it takes to fly a t2 BC currently fits between cruiser and BB as it should
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1400 - 2016-09-20 23:20:18 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
so miners should be able to continue getting huge boosts with no risk?




Clearly, you don't mine.

Good day to you, sir.




huh? are you saying the boosting ships should be able to give these massive boosts with no risk or not?