These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2016-08-29 17:56:23 UTC
Bienator II wrote:


- you should not be able to cloak the links right after the buff.

Good point, the already mentioned cloaky nullified drive-by booster. This could be easily fixed by giving command bust modules a penalty to cloak reactivation.

I'm my own NPC alt.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#162 - 2016-08-29 17:57:05 UTC  |  Edited by: TrouserDeagle
the effects are still just far too strong, you should cut them in half

and navy mindlinks should give a smaller bonus than normal mindlinks, maybe cut both of them down to make them less essential. having too much of an implant requirement is bad for proper pvp

and I think those burst ranges are too high, 15km sounds about right for fully skilled and bonused
Jennifer Cho
Oberon Incorporated
#163 - 2016-08-29 17:59:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vidork Drako wrote:
Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. Lol

Now a question who will come back again and again until we got an answer :

Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?

Lets us know please. A simple yes or no will be enough.

No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.



Given below quoting the dev blog the bonus given by the skill are underwhelming compared to their ranking :

Dev Blog wrote:
Our plan for skill requirements in the new system significantly reduces the barrier to entry for this role.


Imagine one of your development points :- As a fleet booster I am happy to spend a month training Fleet Command to 5 so that I gain an extra 4%.

These skills, as designed, are closer to the electronic systems skills which top out at Rank 5 (excepting the Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration - and that is only 8).

I would suggest that Fleet Command should be at max a Rank 8 skill (preferably 6) and Wing Command a Rank 5 skill and that you should return the excess skill points.
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#164 - 2016-08-29 17:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
Moac Tor wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Alhira Katserna wrote:
Annia Aurel wrote:
Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills?
Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ...


Good question. I hope they get refunded as they´re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet.

They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund?

Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills.


a. Because previously they provided a bonus for any and every FC running a fleet. Now they aren't gonna do jack unless FC wants to hop in a boost ship and put a target on his forehead in every engagement.

b. Saying we can "extract them" is just accepting the fact that its just a way for CCP to squeeze more money out of ppl buy giving them a reason to buy extractors just to get use out of the SP that they already spent monthly fee's on in order to train. It's like selling someone a car then telling them gas isn't gonna be sold for that car anymore and it can only be driven on specific roads unless they buy a new special upgrade. It's essentially bait and switch.

No, this is how skill changes have always been handled. If the skill is still useful in any capacity then you don't get a refund. If the skill is removed completely, only then you will get a refund.

When the Advanced Ship Construction skills where nerfed to 1% PE per level (so almost useless), no SP refund was given.

When mining barge was removed as a pre req for the Orca, no SP refund was given.

I don't see why this scenario should be made an exception. Plus back then there was no option of extracting the SP.


Can't speak for every past change but there were certainly changes in the past that resulted in SP refunds. Just because some changes did not result in said refund doesn't mean there's not a case for saying this one should. Particularly now that spending cash money to extract skills is a thing. If you establish that it's ok to change to functionality of a skill after it's already literally been paid for then what's to stop them from doing the same thing over and over again all in the name of "balance" just to get ppl to pay them cash for more extractors. Extractors which can ONLY be brought into the game through real world cash transactions.
Are you ready to start getting farmed for $$$? If I pay $ to train a skill (aquire sp) and the function of that skill changes so that it no longer provides me with a benefit then I should be entitled to a reapplication of that skill to something that will benefit me.
CCP have literally nothing to lose (that they are entitled to) by letting ppl respec the SP spent on these skills. All they have to lose is money they can potentially extract from the player base through extractor sales and to call that a shady business practice is an understatement.

Daemun of Khanid
yuma detog
Skyrock
#165 - 2016-08-29 18:01:24 UTC
What happened to encouraging people to fly their own ships (with the proposed fleet warp changes a year ago)?

This smartbomb-buff-mechanic is forcing players even stronger into choosing an anchor and stick with it if they want to receive boosts.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2016-08-29 18:01:35 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Rowells wrote:
IM SO HARD RIGHT NOW BUT ALSO PICKY ON THE DETAILS A BIT. FC I NEED A TOWEL: STAT.

Quote:
T1 Industrial Core (while active)

+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+50% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range

T2 Industrial Core (while active)

+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength

+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range


AAAASSAGGHGGHGGHGGGGG DAMNIT WHY CCP WHY

I was also hoping to do away with the requirement to siege to get the bonus. Theoretically though with the numbers given it is still worth using a Rorqual for boosting even without siege active which would make both playstyles viable. So risk / reward. I think this is a nice balance.

I honestly don't feel the same way. There's a definite progression of bonuses and skill/isk cost as ships get larger or more specialized, and the progression seems to be better after the changes as well. However, once you throw in the 5-minute anchoring in place aspect, suddenly the potential risk goes much higher.

I also dislike the fact that it is the only ship that has to make this kind of commitment for its bonuses. It's pretty much always been the point of contention whenever the rorqual is brought up, and to me, seems to be the excuse for introducing the new PANIC button, rather than the other way around (bonuses justifying a penalty instead of penalty justifying a bonus).
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#167 - 2016-08-29 18:02:34 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?

Yield boosts are still there. The reduction in crystal destruction boost does look a little weak though in comparison to the others.
Locke Erasmus
Violent Trans Matching
Neon Nightmares
#168 - 2016-08-29 18:03:42 UTC
So boosts will now have duration bonuses on the buffs, affected by the skills and implants you have. But the cycle time stays the same regardless. So to be at optimal cap usage and conserve ammo, you will have to manually deactivate your boost module and reactivate it when boosts are going to run out. Is this intended gameplay? Or is this just an oversight that hasn't been considered yet?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#169 - 2016-08-29 18:06:06 UTC
All in all, I like it!

As mentioned above, I have some concerns about the new Titan modules, but at it's core I really like the new changes.

I like that Command Ships can only fit two by default and have to further specialize to fit more than that. This suits the on-grid Claymores and Sleipnirs I have been using very well.

I love that you combined the repair cycle time and capacitor usage into one module.

I would like to see Capitals and Supercapitals be better at boosting all around. You already have to make significant trade offs to fit links on the ships.

I'm looking forward to seeing people try to warp in with cloaky nullified T3's to drop boosts and then get out before the other side can lock them. That will be fun and interesting to watch.

I never play in high security space, but you need to do something about neutral boosters. I should be able to kill them if they boost my war target.

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

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#170 - 2016-08-29 18:06:26 UTC
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#171 - 2016-08-29 18:07:54 UTC
Locke Erasmus wrote:
So boosts will now have duration bonuses on the buffs, affected by the skills and implants you have. But the cycle time stays the same regardless. So to be at optimal cap usage and conserve ammo, you will have to manually deactivate your boost module and reactivate it when boosts are going to run out. Is this intended gameplay? Or is this just an oversight that hasn't been considered yet?

Considering we have zero numbers on the whole thing, it's probably best to wait until we get those before such speculation.

If I were going to speculate, though? A ship running its default number of links will be able to run cap-stable with a reasonable effort and level of skill, but will have to run with cap-boosting mods and implants to be able to run more than their default number or will have to sacrifice in other areas such as tank or prop.

For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#172 - 2016-08-29 18:08:29 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.

Squads are must-have for organized bomb runs, among other things.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#173 - 2016-08-29 18:08:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Hey CCP. This thread will be a monument. A Monument to the rage one gets when you spend YEARS giving people some unbalanced BS stuff (again, for YEARS!!!) , then finally fix it to be less unbalanced. This is WHY you don't give people stuff like the old off grid boosts, once it's there , people not only feel entitled to it, they build entire gameplay scenarios around it.


I've already seen 3 people post about leaving the game. WTF are you going to do without their cumulative $45 per month CCP, tell me that? Twisted

I wonder how many people quit over the scourge of boosts ruining small gang PvP.

That should more than balance out the loss from the people whinging about having to actually risk something if they want to use it.
Sulvorati Kunoki
Sunstrike Enterprises
#174 - 2016-08-29 18:08:57 UTC
Currently I can passively boost a fleet from which ever ship I wish to fly. Under the new system it seems I'll have to fly a ship that can take fleet boost modules. For small fleet combat that seems like a big negative change. I don't have any issues with having to be on grid or to have active boosters modules or being made visible as a fleet booster in some way, just would like to be able to do it from whatever ship I choose to fly.

I'm also disappointed that the time I invested in training Leadership skills is being totally nullified without any recompense.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#175 - 2016-08-29 18:10:12 UTC
Does the range of the module apply from the ships center mass or its model edge?
Silven Rubis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2016-08-29 18:12:20 UTC
I dont like the new system at all, its a change for a change nothing newly finetuned just a massive dominant " accept the changes..." - nothig more easy for the gameplay, boosters and booster chars aint gameplay... just why I need amunition to boost and why i need a to learn Command Burst Specialist to achieve -10% Command Burst reload duration per level - already mindtwisting to think just about that...

In german we say "ganz schöner Käse"
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#177 - 2016-08-29 18:17:06 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.


TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar

That can be done by wings as well.

Squads are must-have for organized bomb runs, among other things.

Can be done by names.

Maybe squads don't need to go away completely, but they should not be the standard option for joining a wing. Most scenarios do not require squads after these changes and wings are enough to organize your fleet into the different roles. However, fleet bosses can setup squads for specific scenarios like the bombing that people can join into after they flocked into the fleet. Setting this up is not much work for the fleet boss, in particular if you keep stored fleet setups in mind. One way or another, something ought to be done about that clutter where it's not necessary.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
yuma detog
Skyrock
#178 - 2016-08-29 18:18:16 UTC
Why are the new boosters the only module so far that are range-limited (unlike boosts right now) and that discriminate between friends and foes (unlike any other weapon, Aoe or targeted)?

Making sure your booster stays within boosting range of your own fleet while far enough away to not boost the hostile one could've been something that rewards good piloting. A similar tactic to how logistics are trying to stay close enough to the rest of their fleet to repair them while far enough away from hostile fleets to not be fired upon.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#179 - 2016-08-29 18:18:21 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet.
Disagree. Squads are very helpful in organizing the fleet, plus the fleet window can be arranged in various layers of customizations.

But Skill requirements for fleet size should be removed and refunded, the boost skills can stay since they still matter.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#180 - 2016-08-29 18:18:21 UTC
Winter Archipelago wrote:
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.

Maybe it'll finally get some career miners to fit a tank instead of going for pure yield, then whining about how they have it so hard compared to others when every other activity in the game has to decide on their own personal balance between tank and gank.



Oh shut up and take it to the other thread where this is being debated.

And just for your information...we already decide, every day, whether to fit tank or yield.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.