Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:36:05 -
[241] - Quote
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. You may be missing the point.
It also affects armor and shield modules & rigs, like resistances for example. |
crazydaisy
Gargling Cucumbers
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:36:23 -
[242] - Quote
Well, I'm not wild about these changes. I'm a miner and I think we do get thrown enough crap at as is. I know afk mining is not active game play but we have CODE that takes care of that. BUT: I don't see how having an On-Grid-Booster for mining(!) will make the gameplay better, I really don't. I understand that during a fight and you don't see that your opponent is having off-grid-boosts might be considered bad game play and could be considered unfair by some. But tell me, how in the world is it bad game play or even better game play for 2 miners in the same belt, one with OGB and the other with none booster, how will an On-Grid-Booster add to better game play. Really, I'm all ears. I want to hear it(tbh: I think you were just too lazy to code it differently). I don't want your Noctis ripoff ship(what is this? you could not even invent a new boat for us? omg) and I don't want my boosters be in belt all the time. Nothing will be gained by it. I will certainly stick around to see how this will develop but I do think this will be as bad as it looks right now. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2442
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:38:32 -
[243] - Quote
Is the fleet hierarchy, as well as the ability to warp one's wing or squad as a leader, going to stay intact after this change? It still has value, even if it isn't being used for distributing fleet boosts.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:38:51 -
[244] - 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. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
317
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:40:01 -
[245] - Quote
Sulvorati Kunoki wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Sulvorati Kunoki wrote: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.
Just use a Command Destroyer. They're very useful already even without the current Warfare Links. Command Bursts are just going to make them even more useful. I don't doubt that they are useful. However the point was that I can currently passive boost in ANY ship and if I choose to I can get in a Command ship and actively boost some more. I don't like the reduction in choice that limits my particular game play. Having said that I'm sure I can adapt. Okay, I see where you're coming from. Yeah, removing options probably looks bad right now, but I'm sure this will be of benefit in the long run. If you think about it, it'll actually allow you to engage in the small-gang PvP you love with less risk of off-grid links ruining your day in exchange for losing those passive skill bonuses.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1846
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:40:11 -
[246] - Quote
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?
ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible? |
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:40:39 -
[247] - Quote
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. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
305
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:41:33 -
[248] - Quote
Triggered Liberal wrote:Querns wrote:Triggered Liberal wrote:So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance. Your community is based on offgrid boosting? Yup. We mine while we work. The boosts were what brought us together. Now having to have an orca per belt will tear us apart.
Good riddance. AFKers are horrible.
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:42:33 -
[249] - Quote
*delete* |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2442
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:42:45 -
[250] - Quote
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.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:42:54 -
[251] - 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 |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
574
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:43:10 -
[252] - Quote
yuma detog wrote: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. No, because your suggestion makes boosts useful only for kiting/sniping fleets, and useless for close-range brawling fleets.
|
Bishop Bob
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
23
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:43:48 -
[253] - Quote
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?
The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:44:13 -
[254] - 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 |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:44:58 -
[255] - 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. Rorquals and mining ships are all shield tanks though.
The Rorgual has ... erm ... had a bonus to shield rep. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
305
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:45:30 -
[256] - Quote
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.
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1848
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:46:36 -
[257] - Quote
Querns wrote: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.
Yeah, I expect that's the case for the buffer boosts, but it warrants clarification - and I added an example into the question to demonstrate the kind of clarification I'm looking for. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
713
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:46:41 -
[258] - Quote
Could I just confirm, if I am to activate a command burst with maximum skills and mindlink using a command ship then the following will occur:
1. Activate the module which cycles for 60 seconds
2. A buff is applied to all ships within the AOE for 129.375 seconds (60*1.15*1.25*1.5)
3. After 60 seconds I can reload the module to a different script which will take another 30 seconds (60*0.5)
4. After another 30 seconds I can apply another buff which will leave the previous buff running for a further 39.375 seconds.
This means that the downtime when applying two buffs with a single module would equate to 90*2 (two cycles + reloads) - 129.375 = 50.625 seconds.
Feedback / Suggestion I think this level of active boosting should yield greater benefits. This would allow smaller gangs which may have only one pilot using a boosting ship to utilise multiple effects. After all making boosting more active and skillful is one of the intended goals for this pass. Having a downtime of 50.625 seconds practically means we are forced to use only one of the effects as we would want the strongest effect applying consistently with no downtime.
I'd like to see the downtime reduced by increasing the maximum boost duration up to 180 seconds so you can apply one boost and then apply another boost afterwards and keep both running simultaneously using a single module. This would be a very nice way to encourage active use of boosting ships. And would allow skillful command ship pilot with two command bursts fitted to apply 4 boosts to a fleet.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
306
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:46:51 -
[259] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:these boosting changes are flat out ********, on grid mining boosts that require ammunition to run.
Has CCP ever tried to be in a null industrialists boots for a week without their dev tools and see how annoying it is to mine and not get killed? 3 hours a day I can probably get to mine with reds constantly in system and managing barges is hard enough, now we have to baby sit multiple boosters?
No, im being serious, this is a giant middle finger in our faces, and an ammo requirement is the cherry on top of the **** mountain.
Oh noes! You can't afk-mine all day in your peaceful null system! OH NOES! Seriously, get more defense fleets?
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Scuzzy Logic
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
155
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:47:28 -
[260] - Quote
Can we get specs on the Porpoise?
A new mining hull is amazing news! |
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1848
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:47:37 -
[261] - Quote
Bishop Bob wrote:The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.
Yes and no - they don't stack directly (just as the DCU never stacked directly), so I'd like some clarification on the interaction there. |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
741
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:47:57 -
[262] - Quote
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-Śre 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 by 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.
well A is blatant bullshit, anyone who has the skills can fly the ships and provide the boosts which guess what is exactly the same as it was before, and B is your opinion combined with a terrible analogy. Please explain why I or anyone else should find either of those things in the slightest bit convincing.
And Hamasaki perhaps you should wait for the actual details to come out, like perhaps in a dev blog they've already said will be coming well before the release of these changes, before you fly off the handle and start making a fool of yourself with wild claims.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1848
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:49:11 -
[263] - Quote
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.
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
296
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:50:14 -
[264] - Quote
15 km range is a joke? 40 km for perfect command ship? CCP aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end? How do you see large fleet battle with this? Battle of tiny balls of steel? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:50:25 -
[265] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Bishop Bob wrote:The current links are already stacking nerfed with active modules. This part of the change isn't new.
Yes and no - they don't stack directly (just as the DCU never stacked directly), so I'd like some clarification on the interaction there. As far as I know, neither implants nor boots were stacking penalized.
Feel free to correct me. |
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:51:14 -
[266] - Quote
I do understand the frustration here. While off grid boosting was most certainly not a great game mechanic, it has been in the game for a long time and people had adapted their play style to this. It has needed fixing and I love the idea of making it an interactive skill, much like the interceptor or logistic role which could bring some exciting changes and challenges.
The main problem to me is that it feels like these changes are a 'one size needs to fit it all' solution to the vast variety of situations which people are currently using off grid boosts for. The current 'links' system is used in all kinds of pvp from the large fights to small gang stuff, faction warfare and all kinds of pve activities from mission and incursion running to mining and all these in game activities have very different parameters. While 60 seconds can be an eternity in a small nano gang it most certainly is not for a miner or an incursion runner. Some of these activities can be static but many cannot.
It's interesting to see that people are so dismissive of the concerns raised by others outside of their particular area of interest, folks, do try to remember that this change does effect all of us equally and people will always be unsettled when a mechanic that they are very used to is changed and may cause a negative effect.
CCP please try to work on the 'one size fits all' approach if that is possible because that doesn't seem like it works well for many people who currently use 'links'. |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
306
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:51:17 -
[267] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote: I was about to buy a Rorq, man I'm so glad I didn't now. Once again Fozzie, Seagull and team 5o screw over a whole part of the game to provide targets....
How many mining fleets can you see in null having one on grid? No chance of it without a combat fleet backup, so they might get used in corp ops.
There's no chance of me putting a Rorq, Orca or much of anything else on grid that doesn't stand a chance of warping away when a red fleet hits the system.
So we better get used to no boost mining I suppose.
Cheers Fozzie ..i..
Glorious tears. Adapt or die.
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
306
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:52:03 -
[268] - Quote
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:1) 15km range is a joke? Aren't you forgetting a 0 at the end?
2) This whole idea is ok as long as you offer a way to reimburse players who want to trash their characters after this patch. For example make all command-related skill points reallocate-able.
You're not incorporating ship and skill bonuses. 15km is BASE range. Try using EWAR on a non-ewar ship. Pretty ******. Same here.
"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
|
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
21
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:53:45 -
[269] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Under this new boosting system, there's no difference between 5 squads or 5 wings. While this is correct, organizing your fleet into separate and specific functions is still valid. A frigate punt squad with a combat probe scanner in there, flanks, recons, logi, ship classes, ship sizes... the list goes on. And it's important due to "warp squad to" and also to have separate lists for squads and wings to react accordingly.
The removal of squads and wings will become a structural and logistical nightmare, if we do not get tools to customize and rearrange our own fleet makeup.
crazydaisy wrote:BUT: I don't see how having an On-Grid-Booster for mining(!) will make the gameplay better, I really don't. Tell me, how in the world is it bad game play or even better game play for 2 miners in the same belt, one with OGB and the other with none booster, how will an On-Grid-Booster add to better game play. Really, I'm all ears. I want to hear it(tbh: I think you were just too lazy to code it differently). Well you could say that one of them has decided to give more money to the company to have an advantage which means those accounts (characters) will no longer be needed or repurposed into something else. Like, I don't know, siphon skills to make more money with selling skill injectors. But that's all rambling. I can think of a good number of interesting benefits for ongrid boosting mining ships, but those have to move outside of the "straight mining bonus" category to be interesting. |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:53:45 -
[270] - Quote
Hamasaki Cross wrote:not sure since I didn't wanna read the 200 posts of comments on the million ways that this sucks (unless you're a CCPlease member who doesn't actually play, do industry, or understand the fact that mining is already on a decline and this will do nothing but hammer the final nail in the coffin, but instead, comes up with social experiments in order to ruin actual customer gameplay)
but mainly, for those of us who have trained literally a year of crap leadership skills that are now worthless, do we get a refund?
Also is there a refund for the Rorqual, which is literally an obsolete ship now? And mining skills and ships, which are no longer viable?
note: before the pvp e-peen nerds rage that there should be risk for the benefit, please note in advance, that you are correct. However, the game was designed one way, so people skill trained and invested in that way, so there should be some compensation for screwing that up in the interest of better game balance.
Final note: I find it comical that cloaking has no counter after 13 years.
Very true mate!!! +1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |