These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Command Burst Specialist change suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Siigari Kitawa
New Eden Archery Club
#1 - 2016-12-02 21:21:59 UTC
Right now it grants a charge reload speed increase.

Can that be changed to a duration increase? Reason is because if a charge lasts over 120 seconds, but they refresh every 60, there is wasted potential there.

And if anybody brings up 'micro your boosts' then I am going to ask you to do the same in PVP.

Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2016-12-02 22:07:57 UTC
That potential covers ships that move in & out of your boost radius.
The only reason it's wasted potential is because you are sitting there with a bunch of stationary ships pressing F1 (Or if they are barges they press F2 also), and not having to worry about any kind of mobility.
So no, lets not screw every single pilot who deals with boosting a moving fleet just to satisfy your desire for perfect efficiency.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#3 - 2016-12-02 22:22:47 UTC
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Right now it grants a charge reload speed increase.

Can that be changed to a duration increase? Reason is because if a charge lasts over 120 seconds, but they refresh every 60, there is wasted potential there.

And if anybody brings up 'micro your boosts' then I am going to ask you to do the same in PVP.


Have you actually done any PVP with the new command bursts? Literally everyone already "micros their boosts" if they give a **** about their command ship. Because, you know, people can shoot you now. I personally don't want to brick tank my Magus and sit where people can shoot me when I can screen myself behind the fleet and advance in to stranger danger range only when necessary to catch the fleet with a cycle.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-12-02 22:39:27 UTC
The disparity between the cycle time and the boost duration is very much intended.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Siigari Kitawa
New Eden Archery Club
#5 - 2016-12-02 22:57:32 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So no, lets not screw every single pilot who deals with boosting a moving fleet just to satisfy your desire for perfect efficiency.

Alright that's fair.

So why don't we permit mining boost ships to have an increase in duration? Surely that is a compromise that does not invalidate your guys' methodology.

Just musing.

Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-12-02 22:59:54 UTC
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So no, lets not screw every single pilot who deals with boosting a moving fleet just to satisfy your desire for perfect efficiency.

Alright that's fair.

So why don't we permit mining boost ships to have an increase in duration? Surely that is a compromise that does not invalidate your guys' methodology.

Just musing.


Why don't we just go ahead and not change anything merely to avoid the utterly minuscule waste of letting the booster free-cycle?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Siigari Kitawa
New Eden Archery Club
#7 - 2016-12-02 23:05:15 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So no, lets not screw every single pilot who deals with boosting a moving fleet just to satisfy your desire for perfect efficiency.

Alright that's fair.

So why don't we permit mining boost ships to have an increase in duration? Surely that is a compromise that does not invalidate your guys' methodology.

Just musing.


Why don't we just go ahead and not change anything merely to avoid the utterly minuscule waste of letting the booster free-cycle?

Why don't we just change everything so the game is so much easier, then people celebrate. Then one person puts up a suggestion and some people rage against 'making eve easier.'

You know the past 2 years have been 100% about 'making eve easier' right?

Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-12-02 23:12:22 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So no, lets not screw every single pilot who deals with boosting a moving fleet just to satisfy your desire for perfect efficiency.

Alright that's fair.

So why don't we permit mining boost ships to have an increase in duration? Surely that is a compromise that does not invalidate your guys' methodology.

Just musing.


Why don't we just go ahead and not change anything merely to avoid the utterly minuscule waste of letting the booster free-cycle?

Why don't we just change everything so the game is so much easier, then people celebrate. Then one person puts up a suggestion and some people rage against 'making eve easier.'

You know the past 2 years have been 100% about 'making eve easier' right?


About the only thing this would make "easier" is parking an AFK booster ship in a belt for even longer than the... what, 5 hours? They get right now.

Material for one batch of Laser Field Enhancement charges currently cost 235,795.5 isk in Amarr, with a 6509 isk installation fee in that station.

That's less than 500 isk per shot, at current prices. Running a booster 24/7 for an entire year would cost 254,710,490 isk.

There is absolutely no need to "special case" around something this inconsequential. It's hard to imagine a more absolute waste of dev time.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2016-12-03 00:02:51 UTC
Siigari Kitawa wrote:

Alright that's fair.

So why don't we permit mining boost ships to have an increase in duration? Surely that is a compromise that does not invalidate your guys' methodology.

Just musing.

Because mining fleets can & do move also. Not everyone is in tight belts (ala highsec) in barges. Ventures, Ice Belts, Null Belts all mine in more spread out form. If you aren't using an Orca you have a smaller burst if you are boosting from a T1 BC for example, or from a Porpoise, so may have to bounce between two groups.

So no, lets not do that.
And lets also not have a skill that works differently depending on what it's working on, because that isn't intuitive and is bad game design as well.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2016-12-03 01:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
the intent is to have it benefit those who are willing to micro this includes the mining boosts. stop being afk stop using alts or stop complaining


not to mention what if your fleet is spread out between two points?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Scarlitte
Bahamut Federation
#11 - 2016-12-04 10:51:19 UTC
As some people are thinking about efficiency and refreshing a booster before it runs out is a bad think for those:

Why not add a timer for autoreactivation of modules.

Currently a module will run its next cycle after the first is over.
If Pilots can set a delay between these runs (manually) everyone would be helped.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-12-04 11:06:34 UTC
duration/cycle time off set is fine. I think CCP made a bigger mistake by nerfing carriers and super carriers down to the same 2 burst module native bonus as command ships, given how part of their rebalance was to make them more... I forget their exact wording but force multiplier/support platforms. Shoulda left it at 3.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2016-12-04 12:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: TigerXtrm
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Right now it grants a charge reload speed increase.

Can that be changed to a duration increase? Reason is because if a charge lasts over 120 seconds, but they refresh every 60, there is wasted potential there.

And if anybody brings up 'micro your boosts' then I am going to ask you to do the same in PVP.


Boosting costs you about 8000 ISK a minute (assuming 4 boosts at once at a cost of 2000ISK per charge, which very high) if you just leave it running. 480k an hour. 11 million for 24 hours straight. And you're b*tching about 'wasted potential'?

Get the f*ck outa here.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Lugh Crow-Slave
#14 - 2016-12-04 14:52:28 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
duration/cycle time off set is fine. I think CCP made a bigger mistake by nerfing carriers and super carriers down to the same 2 burst module native bonus as command ships, given how part of their rebalance was to make them more... I forget their exact wording but force multiplier/support platforms. Shoulda left it at 3.



they had the same number as command ships before the change and they have the same after only difference is they now have an advantage in one area over command ships (range) where before they had nothing

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-12-04 18:10:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
duration/cycle time off set is fine. I think CCP made a bigger mistake by nerfing carriers and super carriers down to the same 2 burst module native bonus as command ships, given how part of their rebalance was to make them more... I forget their exact wording but force multiplier/support platforms. Shoulda left it at 3.



they had the same number as command ships before the change and they have the same after only difference is they now have an advantage in one area over command ships (range) where before they had nothing




Yeah. But part of their sales pitch during the carrier rebalance thing(I think it was from one of the fanfest demo's but I really don't remember where I first saw it) was to make them bigger force multiplier type ships instead of the giant drone horde. True they get better range, and less effective command bursts. True they had the same number of command modules before and still do after. Still just feels like a missed opportunity to add just a little more variance and promote a little more cap/subcap fleet mixing ya know?

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2016-12-04 19:00:17 UTC
How would making them better in more aspects promote more mixing? It sounds to me like that would promote less mixing.
The force multiplier stuff is meant to come from things like the support squadrons and the AOE Ewar.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2016-12-04 20:20:44 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
How would making them better in more aspects promote more mixing? It sounds to me like that would promote less mixing.
The force multiplier stuff is meant to come from things like the support squadrons and the AOE Ewar.




Because not all alliances are big enough to throw 3+ alts/mains into command ships with 2 links each, with scouts, and logistics and tackle and escalation alts and this and that and and and.... and the tank on several command ships is questionable at best if you try to fit 3 links on them. Cost/benefit decisions based on number of people available, etc. Yes, Malcanis' Law ofc applies here as well, but it could give another alternative to the links question for groups that don't regularly roll 30+ guys in a fleet.


Just my 2 isk.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
morion
Lighting Build
#18 - 2016-12-05 07:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: morion
Siigari Kitawa wrote:
Right now it grants a charge reload speed increase.

Can that be changed to a duration increase? Reason is because if a charge lasts over 120 seconds, but they refresh every 60, there is wasted potential there.

And if anybody brings up 'micro your boosts' then I am going to ask you to do the same in PVP.


"duration increase"

Has the knock on effect of ICE consumption.

burst ammo charges were balanced toward.