|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:09:59 -
[1] - Quote
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 |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:22:31 -
[2] - Quote
Ok I've calmed down and the sedatives the nurse (graciously) applied are kicking in.
I want to double check, is the industrial core going to continue to have the "locked in place" feature that it currently does? Will there be modifications if so? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3084
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 16:25:42 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:40:11 -
[4] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: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. You mean like the capacitor one we currently have? Pretty much (although I use it anyway) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:31 -
[5] - Quote
Can we get "maximum bonus" from the charts defined? If I'm looking at this correctly, most links got nerfed but new ones added so i don't know what is what. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:35 -
[6] - Quote
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). |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3087
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:10:12 -
[7] - Quote
Does the range of the module apply from the ships center mass or its model edge? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:34:18 -
[8] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Rowells wrote: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). I guess it all will depend on how long the siege cycle is going to be. I am expecting it to be reduced to 1 minute much like the bastion module. I cant see it staying at five minutes personally. The thing I like though is before if you weren't using siege then it was better to use an Orca rather than a Rorqual. This was a stupid situation which has now thankfully been rectified, and it is always going to be better to use the Rorqual even if it is not sieged. I can definitely agree on that. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:38:51 -
[9] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Airi Cho 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. wings are 50 people not just 10 That depends on your fleet size, not on the existence of squads. Under this new boosting system, there's no difference between 5 squads or 5 wings. Aside from asking for a complete revamp of the fleet UI I would simply prefer an unlimited* amount of wings/squads and allow the fleet leadership to determine each ones size and composition. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:42:54 -
[10] - Quote
Rosal Milag wrote:Rorquals should have the bonus to armor links as well as shield. This would keep armor heavy response fleets on equal grounds to shield fleets. Since barges are shield tanked, fitting armor links wouldn't help the miners in the short term but would be a big help to any fleets trying to save them. ****, where are my structure links? CCP plz fix |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:44:13 -
[11] - Quote
Querns wrote:Arrendis wrote:Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say: 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. Does that mean... Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances ... are made useless by fitting hardeners? Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints ... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders? Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors ... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo? For the armor and shield buffer ones, it's unlikely. Shield extenders and armor plates add absolute values of additional tank buffer and is not subject to diminishing returns. The +buffer links would multiply the effectiveness of each extender/plate. For the other ones, they will be stacking penalized with other hardeners or sensor boosters, since they offer a percentage-based modifier. Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:58:07 -
[12] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Rowells wrote: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. In a big enough mining fleet, the cost in crystals alone could make this module pay for itself really quickly. I'm actually thinking that this is a very strong bonus. Maybe so. But in comparison to the benefit the other links provide, it's very low. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:59:24 -
[13] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Rowells wrote:Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying There's also the question of how they interact on ships like the ANI, which already has a raw bonus to Armor HP. Oh boy I'm getting a chubby thinking of new damnation/t3 fits too. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:04:38 -
[14] - Quote
Are there any plans or discussions to involve some more diverse fitting modifications for links? We've got the modules, ships, and skills, but nothing to try and make trade offs for things like range, duration, or power. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:10 -
[15] - Quote
Don Trust wrote:So my main is halfway through training for boosts with the current system. Do I stop now? Hurry up and get it fully trained (skill inject). I'm not sure what I should do at this point (I still have more to read, so this may have already been covered).
Any suggestions? Don o7 If your pilot isn't trained for normal combat ships + fittings you are going to be in a tight spot (ex: specialized off grid boosters). However if your character is capable of flying any of the ships that can fit a link, and fly them with enough skill to take some gunfire, you should be fine.
That being said, you have to determine if being a boosting pilot is something you want to do in a fleet. The same exact considerations for other roles (logistics, tackle, dps, etc.)
Depending on where "half-way" means for you, you are in a good position to also determine what is going to be worth the train(FC V for example) and spec your skills as far as you think you need to go.
Personally, I'm only ripping out skills on my OGB character and keeping the relevant mining links (thankfully he was used as both). I will also continue to finish off infowar skills on the main. Not too sure about FC V yet though. May not be worth it.
Depending on your isk pile/income and your current sp level, injecting is up to you. I'm at 95mil sp so I don't plan on injecting anything ever really :(. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:40:16 -
[16] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:It's Risk vs. Reward: If you want the best reward, you need to put up the most risks, and just like pretty much everything else in EVE, the risk goes up significantly faster than the reward (which goes along with the absolute best mining buffs require you to lock yourself down for five minutes). By that line of reasoning, should we expect command ships to receive a lockdown module as well?
The rorqual has always been the odd exception for boosts bonuses in regards to tying it to the Indy core. And countless threads have been almost always been about trying to make the module worthwhile, rather than trying to justify its existence from the beginning.
As much as I prefer to keep things in rather than removing them entirely, the Indy core has been a noose hanging around the rorquals neck for its entire existence. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:19:08 -
[17] - Quote
One other question, since boosts will likely be dropping on and off more often, and we now have an hp bonus boost, will there be any issues regarding not having enough hp to bounce?
I ask this because I have seen ships (a Titan too) die because of errant armor calculations. And going into the negatives won't exactly be the best option either (seen that as well). |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3089
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 21:23:58 -
[18] - Quote
Chris Kelvin wrote: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. You mean exactly like it is now? Two modules everyone uses and one that everyone kinda goes, WTF is that for? Yes? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3090
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:06:01 -
[19] - Quote
Any consideration to allowing overheating for these modules? Could affect range, strength, duration, etc. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3095
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 13:48:18 -
[20] - Quote
I've had some time to mull over the idea of ammo for the boosting modules, and I'm not entirely convinced it will add any meaningful gameplay.
I can understand scripts if they are necessary to make the system work without being a programming nightmare, but having specific ammunition that has little to no impact on cargo space seems like an extra unnecessary step in the scheme of things. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3096
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 17:01:32 -
[21] - Quote
Quote:Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Field Enhancement: 30% (+2%) increased range Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Optimization: 15% (+3%) reduced cycle time and cap use Mining Foreman: Mining Equipment Preservation: 15% (+3%) reduced mining crystal volitility
T1 Industrial Core (while active): 100% (+50%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range T2 Industrial Core (while active): 200% (+100%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Rorqual: 5% (+1%) bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
Does anyone know what the final (max) stats for these will be?
I hate to be the one to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I am still very much against having to use the industrial core for boosting. I would have even been willing to suffer a few nerfs in other areas for it, but the absolute risk of having such an exspensive ship locked in place for potentially hours is very balanced for the reward when compared to the other two options.
My prediction is that after a few weeks of misguided (or uninformed) belt boosting and losses, we won't actually see the rorqual in belts more often. Short of individuals who can recoup the cost of a fully fitted and insured rorqual in a relatively short period of time (i.e. Hardcore multiboxers), it will see less use for anyone who doesn't meet that criteria. If the lockdown was simply removed, I can practically gauruntee that the rorqual will be in belts much more often than with that penalty. I've caught a few rorquals (and a freighter or two) and typically it never goes well for the owner. The defense fleets either weren't quick enough, never arrived due to our overwhelming force, or I was in a gimmick-hyperspatial-fit machariel and 15 procurers on grid kindly informed me that I had the wrong ship. Nothing out of the ordinary here in the scheme of things, but having a seige mode makes it even worse than any other tackled capital (not to mention the other dead barges).
I'll gave you credit Fozzie, back when barges were being tiericded, you made the argument that having a defense fleet on constant standby was neither fun or interesting gameplay. I really do hope you see the connection here between having rapid defense and protecting another individuals personal income. It works well when the group is threatened (POSes, Sov, Structures), but it's an entirely different mindset when it comes to someone's ratting or mining. I hope we can understand that reality (and the fact that it's unlikely to change), and work to build mechanics that work with and around that, rather than simply frustrating everyone not involved in the loss. Team effort and work are definitely necessary, but things like mining don't typically compensate anyone (in terms of fun per hour or isk), which is unfortunately an issue with the mining design as a whole.
I'll hold my final opinion until I see the rorqual changes themselves, but I'm not holding much confidence right now. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:13:51 -
[22] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:-¦ damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here? Native speaker here.
...
I have no idea if it's right or not. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 20:27:09 -
[23] - Quote
Pretagos Omilas wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:(...)
The "super weapon" (a.k.a. panic button) affects all mining ships in the fleet with the Rorqual.
Last I heard anyways.
During that time (10 minutes), they are invulnerable and can't move. Ok, so how about activating the "super weapon" _after_ (most of) your mining ships warped out? And if someone didn't warp out in time he can always eject and warp back in a pod. From the sound of it, the barges won't be able to do anything except mine (ironically). And your suggestion raises a big issue with the module, it's more optimal to not get stuck in the lockdown in the first place. Aside from skiffs and procurers, none of the barges are designed for combat. So the logical choice is to remove them from that situation.
It's much more like a reinforcement timer for a ship(s). Hopefully giving you enough time to call for help. And even for some of the more responsive groups out there, 10 minutes is really difficult time frame to manage. Especially if many of your other corpmates are already out taking advantage of their own isk-making activities. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3099
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 22:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote: Actually, it was the capacitor reduction bonus that was removed.
I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.
The capacitor and cycle time were rolled into the same boost. My math may be off, but all I saw was a change because a strip was removed or added However, that doesn't compensate for removal of the cap boost. Feel free to correct me. Iirc barge tweaks affected yield very little if at all. Covetor/hulk got more potential yield from an extra lowslot.
the mining foreman bonus (+10% yield) is missing
Cycle time and cap reduction were rolled into one
According to the updated blog, the cycle time boosts went up 15 percentage points (~42% currently, 57.3% new)
So o don't know the whole math scheme, but comparing current and new, absolute maximums indicate a slight yield buff. Going down from there I don't know how the picture looks. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 03:41:58 -
[25] - Quote
So, unless my math is wrong, the boosts from the orca have been nerfed by roughly 16%? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 18:38:53 -
[26] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Killing the booster is often not an option due to how much tank they can get, plus they are almost always on a logistics watchlist That seems fine to me. Tough tank issues like that are not unique to command ships, and in those codes its best to find the weakest link and start from there. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3100
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 21:52:50 -
[27] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:am i the only one who has noticed that the numbers in the blog for max value with skills/ships/plants don't add up? Which ones? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3101
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 14:25:18 -
[28] - Quote
Well I geuss I am a super-minority here then. Anybody else use their Rorq for hauling/surveying/faction dread ratting? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3102
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:43:28 -
[29] - Quote
Sentenced 1989 wrote: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. Or is it 15km x (1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.25 x 2.00) = 126.56km? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3102
|
Posted - 2016.09.08 17:45:02 -
[30] - Quote
Btw, is the boosting nerf (implant/skill yield loss) on the orca intended? Or is my math off? It's like 16% lower than what is currently available. |
|
|
|
|